Matter of Kleinman v. Impellitteri, 13 N.Y.2d 923 (1963)
Mandamus relief may be denied even where a legal right exists if the petitioner’s entitlement to such relief is not manifestly clear, especially when considering the practical implications for municipal budgetary processes.
Summary
This case addresses whether mandamus should compel the Board of Estimate to include certain judicial salaries in the city’s budget after the budget’s adoption but before a constitutional amendment altering salary-setting procedures took effect. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts’ grant of mandamus, holding that despite the Justices’ legal right to fix salaries initially, the petitioners did not demonstrate a sufficiently manifest right to warrant mandamus relief at that stage, given the intervening adoption of the budget and the pending constitutional amendment. The dissent argued that the Justices’ right was clear under the existing Judiciary Law and should be enforced.
Facts
In January 1962, the Board of Justices of Kings County voted on certain judicial salaries and submitted them to the Board of Estimate for inclusion in the city budget. The Board of Estimate adopted the budget in May 1962, without fully incorporating those salaries. A constitutional amendment, effective September 1, 1962, altered the method of fixing salaries for court employees paid by the city. Petitioners sought a mandamus order to compel the Board of Estimate to include the originally voted salaries in the budget.
Procedural History
The Special Term granted the petitioners an order in the nature of mandamus. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts’ orders, denying the mandamus relief.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners demonstrated a sufficiently manifest right to mandamus relief to compel the Board of Estimate to include specific judicial salaries in the city budget after the budget’s adoption, considering a pending constitutional amendment that would alter salary-setting procedures.
Holding
No, because the petitioners did not demonstrate a sufficiently manifest right to insist on that legal right as to entitle petitioners to mandamus, especially given the timing relative to the budget adoption and the impending constitutional amendment.
Court’s Reasoning
The majority reasoned that even though the Justices possessed the legal right to fix salaries initially under Section 315 of the Judiciary Law, the circumstances did not warrant mandamus. The court implied a degree of deference to the Board of Estimate’s budgetary decisions, especially given the imminent constitutional change. The decision suggests a balancing of the Justices’ legal right against practical considerations of municipal governance and budgetary stability. The majority opinion is brief and does not elaborate extensively on the policy considerations influencing its decision. The dissent, authored by Fuld, J., argued that the Justices’ right to fix salaries was mandatory under existing law at the time the budget was being formulated. The dissent emphasized that the constitutional amendment had not yet taken effect when the budget was adopted, and therefore, it could not diminish the Justices’ power. The dissent cited precedent (e.g., Matter of Moskowitz v. La Guardia) establishing the Justices’ authority in salary matters. The dissenting opinion underscores the principle that, absent a clear legal impediment, a validly established legal right should be enforced, particularly when lower courts have already granted the requested relief. The dissent criticized the majority for substituting its discretion for that of the lower courts, which had found the mandamus appropriate. The dissent stated, “There can be no doubt that, when in January, 1962, the salaries here involved were voted by the Board of Justices of Kings County and submitted to the Board of Estimate for inclusion in the city’s budget, the Justices had the mandatory right and power to fix such salaries and to require the Board of Estimate to provide for them in the budget.”