Matter of Antonelli v. Board of Supervisors, 26 N.Y.2d 432 (1970)

When a salary increase is the result of a legislative reallocation to achieve parity and not a promotion, ordinances pertaining to promotions do not apply, and the legislative intent to equalize salaries should be upheld.

Summary

This case concerns a dispute over the salary grade reclassification of court officers in Nassau County. The petitioners, uniformed court officers of the District and Family Courts, sought a higher salary grade following an ordinance that elevated County Court officers to a higher grade. The Board of Supervisors amended the ordinance to provide parity but classified the petitioners at a lower step than they claimed they were entitled to. The court held that the salary increase was a reallocation to achieve parity, not a promotion, making promotion-related ordinances inapplicable and upholding the legislative intent to equalize salaries among court officers with similar duties.

Facts

Uniformed court officers of the District and Family Courts in Nassau County were classified at salary grade 14, step 2, with an annual salary of $6,548 as of December 31, 1966.
On January 1, 1967, County Court officers were elevated to grade 15, step 2, with an annual salary of $7,147 via county ordinance No. 1/1967.
Petitioners sought “reclassification” to achieve parity with the County Court officers. The Board of Supervisors then amended the ordinance (No. 77/1967) to fix the petitioners’ salary at grade 15, step 2, retroactive to January 1, 1967.
Petitioners claimed they were already at grade 14, step 3, due to an automatic raise on January 1, 1967, and demanded reclassification to grade 15, step 3 or step 4.

Procedural History

Petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel the Board of Supervisors to reclassify them at a higher salary grade.
The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the application.
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the judgment and fixed the salaries at grade 15, step 4.
The Board of Supervisors appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether Ordinance No. 77 of 1967, by its retroactive effective date, effectuates the legislative intent to create parity among the several court officers with similar duties and service in Nassau County through salary reallocation and not through promotion.

Holding

No, because the increase in salary was due to a reallocation of salary grade, not a promotion, and the legislative intent was to create parity among court officers with similar duties and service in Nassau County.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that Ordinance No. 118 of 1962, which governs promotions, was not applicable because the petitioners’ salaries were increased through reallocation by county legislative action to re-establish equality with the County Court officers. The court emphasized that there was no promotion involved. Even if Ordinance No. 118 were relevant, the court would find it superseded by Ordinance No. 77 of 1967, which was specifically enacted to achieve salary equalization. The court highlighted the language in Ordinance No. 77, which included the phrase “Change and Correct,” indicating an intent to correct oversights in the original salary legislation and create parity among court officers in the County, District, and Family Courts. The court stated that a contrary holding would create an “undesired and undesirable disparity in salaries of court officers performing similar duties.” The court emphasized the legislative intent: “The intent to create a parity among court officers in the County, District and Family Courts clearly appears in Ordinance No. 77 of 1967.” The court reinstated the judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County.