Bach v. Board of Estimate, 21 N.Y.2d 164 (1967)

The power to withhold salary increases from nonjudicial employees of the Supreme Court, such as law secretaries, rests with the individual Supreme Court Justices who appointed them, not the Appellate Division.

Summary

This case concerns whether the Appellate Division had the authority to withhold salary increases from Supreme Court Law Secretaries. The Court of Appeals held that the power to withhold salary increases rested with the individual Supreme Court Justices who appointed the law secretaries, not the Appellate Division. The legislative appropriations for salary increases contained a provision allowing increases to be withheld by the “appropriate appointing authority.” The Court found that the Judiciary Law specifically grants the power to appoint law secretaries to the individual Supreme Court Justices, and this power was preserved even after court reorganization. Thus, the Appellate Division’s attempt to withhold these increases was unlawful.

Facts

The petitioners were non-lawyer Law Secretaries to Justices of the Supreme Court in the First and Second Departments. In 1961 and 1962, the legislature appropriated funds for increased salaries for certain judicial officers and employees. These appropriations allowed the “appropriate appointing authority” to withhold these increases. In 1964, the Presiding Justices of the Appellate Divisions, First and Second Departments, sent a letter to the Mayor of New York City stating that the Justices of the two Departments would be withholding salary increases from certain nonjudicial personnel, including the petitioners. The petitioners challenged this action, arguing that the Appellate Division Justices were not the “appropriate appointing authority.”

Procedural History

Petitioners brought proceedings challenging the Appellate Division’s authority to withhold their salary increases. Special Term agreed with the petitioners in two proceedings, ruling in their favor. However, in the third proceeding, Special Term sided with the respondents and dismissed the petition. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed these decisions, holding that all three petitions should have been dismissed. The case then went to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the Justices of the Appellate Division, First and Second Departments, were the “appropriate appointing authority” with the power to withhold salary increases from Law Secretaries to Justices of the Supreme Court.

Holding

No, because the individual Justices of the Supreme Court, not the Appellate Division, have the power to appoint Law Secretaries and, therefore, the authority to withhold salary increases.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the identity of the “appropriate appointing authority” was the central issue. The Court examined the Judiciary Law and determined that Section 157 grants individual Justices of the Supreme Court the power to appoint their Law Secretaries. Section 222 of the Judiciary Law further clarifies that this power continues even after court reorganization, “notwithstanding the provisions of section two hundred fourteen of this chapter,” which deals with the general administrative powers of the Appellate Divisions. The Court emphasized that while the Appellate Divisions have administrative powers, including budget supervision, these powers do not extend to appointing law secretaries. The court stated that the pre-existing power of Supreme Court Justices to appoint their staff “was thus expressly preserved at the time of court reorganization and continues, subject to the standards and policies adopted by the Judicial Conference.” The Court also noted that the letter from the Appellate Division Justices to the Mayor only claimed that they were “exercising the prerogative of the appropriate appointing authority,” implying they were not the authority itself. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Appellate Division Justices lacked the authority to withhold the salary increases. As such, the orders of the Appellate Division were reversed, and the petitions of Bach, Mariconda and Serra were granted.