58 N.Y.2d 460 (1983)
A state budgetary act does not violate equal protection merely because it creates geographic pay differences, provided the state has a rational basis for the distinction.
Summary
County Court Judges, Family Court Judges, and Surrogates sued the State of New York, claiming that the Unified Court Budget Act denied them equal protection by providing higher salaries to judges of coordinate jurisdiction in specific metropolitan counties. The plaintiffs sought retroactive salary increments to compensate for these pay discrepancies. The Court of Appeals held that the Act did not violate equal protection because rational bases (such as population, caseload, and cost of living) existed to justify the geographic salary differences. The court modified the Appellate Division’s order to reinstate the complaint against the State for the purpose of declaring the statute constitutional.
Facts
Several County Court Judges, Family Court Judges, and Surrogates throughout New York State received lower salaries than judges of similar courts in certain metropolitan counties within New York City. The disparity stemmed from the Unified Court Budget Act. The judges argued that the discrepancy violated their right to equal protection under the law.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court consolidated the judges’ three actions and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The Appellate Division reversed that decision, granting judgment to all defendants except the State Comptroller, declaring the statute constitutional. The complaint against the State was dismissed. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Unified Court Budget Act violates the Equal Protection Clause by providing higher salaries for judges of coordinate jurisdiction in specific counties, despite the state takeover of court funding.
Holding
No, because the State had a rational basis for establishing salary differentials based on factors such as population, caseload, and cost of living in different areas of the state.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals found the salary discrepancies were rationally related to legitimate state interests. The court relied on the principle that “a State budgetary act ‘will not be struck as violative of equal protection merely because it creates differences in geographic areas… As long as the State had a rational basis for making such a distinction, it will pass constitutional muster under an equal protection challenge.’” The court recognized “State-wide disparities in population, caseload, and cost of living, which provide a rational basis for the Legislature to adopt price differentials for those serving in different areas of the State.” The court distinguished this case from Weissman v. Evans, where salary differences between District Court judges in neighboring counties lacked a rational basis. The court emphasized that “equal protection does not require that all classifications be made with mathematical precision.” The dissenting judge argued that the salary discrepancies were based on the historical fact of local court funding, which was no longer a rational basis after the state took over funding. The dissent pointed to specific examples of judges with larger caseloads receiving lower salaries than judges with smaller caseloads in other counties. The court ultimately modified the Appellate Division’s order, reinstating the complaints against the State for the technical purpose of declaring in favor of the State and other defendants, and affirmed the order.