Opinion ID: 2060361
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Maron v Silver et al.

Text: The Maron petitionerscurrent and former State Supreme Court Justices and District Court Judgescommenced this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding/declaratory judgment action against respondents Sheldon Silver, as Speaker of the Assembly, Joseph Bruno, then Temporary President of the Senate, Eliot Spitzer, then Governor of New York, Thomas DiNapoli in his capacity as State Comptroller, the Assembly and Senate and the Office of Court Administration (OCA). [2] The article 78 proceeding seeks mandamus relief compelling the Comptroller to disburse all retroactive sums and pay the budgeted raises allocated in the 2006-2007 state budget for judicial salary reform. The petition also asserts violations of the Separation of Powers Doctrine, equal protection and the State Compensation Clause. Supreme Court, Albany County, partially granted defendants' motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action, leaving intact the separation of powers claim. The court further held that Silver, Bruno and Spitzer were immune from suit because setting judicial salaries is a legislative act, and concluded that to the extent the petition alleged a constitutional violation against the Assembly and Senate, those allegations constituted claims against the State. [3] In a 4-1 decision, the Appellate Division dismissed the petition, holding, among other things, that the Maron petitioners' failure to allege a discriminatory attack on the judicial branch that has impaired or imminently threatened the Judiciary's independence and ability to function was fatal to their separation of powers claim ( Matter of Maron v Silver, 58 AD3d 102, 123 [3d Dept 2008]). The Maron petitioners appealed to this Court as of right on the constitutional questions presented. This Court retained jurisdiction over the appeal and denied leave to appeal as unnecessary ( see Matter of Maron v Silver, 12 NY3d 909 [2009]).