Judicial Compensation in New York: A National Perspective, Report

REPORT TO THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 29
Finally, the Commission suggested that should the State not be disposed to follow its
recommendations for salary reform, consideration should be given to improving judicial
benefit programs as an indirect way of improving the compensation package. 10
THE 1984-85 JUDICIAL PAY RAISE
The Dentzer Report and its recommendations were not implemented. Consequently,
there were no changes in the judicial salary structure in 1983 or 1984. Nor did the
Legislature find occasion to revise its own salary structure or that of the
Commissioners and other high-level employees of the Executive Branch. In December
of 1984, however, the Legislature did enact a measure providing pay increases for
judges and legislators, effective January 1, 1985, and for commissioners and other
Executive Branch officials (the so-called section 169 officers), effective retroactive to
July 1, 1984. 11 L. 1984, c. 986.
For most trial judges and for Associate Justices of the Appellate Division, chapter
986 provided between 24% and 27% increases in salary. For Associate Judges of the
Court of Appeals, the increase was somewhat less — only about 14% — likely because
of an artificial cap set by the Governor’s salary. Once again, the rationale for the percentages
applied has been lost to memory.
No effort was undertaken to correct judicial salary disparities among judges of the
major trial courts. There were neither appropriate salary adjustments nor further legislative
directions to study the issue. 12
THE 1987 JUDICIAL PAY RAISE
In the summer of 1987, responding to considerable pressure brought by rank and file
legislators, particularly those from New York City, the Legislature acted to increase its
own salaries, those of high Executive Branch officials, and those of the Judiciary. L.
1987, c. 263. The New York City legislative delegation was especially agitated at the
time because of sizeable pay increases then being adopted for members of the New
York City Council, City Commissioners and the City’s five District Attorneys. 13
Accordingly, the pay raises enacted by the Legislature were quite significant.
10 One suggested improvement was that the State’s retirement statutes be modified to provide enhanced retirement benefits
for judges who retire from the bench after serving only one term. This, it was thought, would encourage able
lawyers to consider capping their careers with a single term on the bench.
11 Interestingly, while many New Yorkers have come to think of the practice of legislating pay raises for high-level government
officials during the months of November and December following legislative elections (as a way of minimizing
political flack, as well as to enable the soonest possible enjoyment of legislative pay raises) as a time-honored one,
the fact is that this December 1984 enactment, along with the fall 1980 judicial pay raise enactment and the
December 1998 enactment (infra), are the only such instances in the past 30 years.
12 A modest effort was undertaken, however, at the level of the upstate City Courts. The judges of those courts had long
argued that they should enjoy salary parity with judges of the District Courts. Chapter 986 gave part-time City Court
judges that parity. Full-time judges, while not reaping exactly the same benefit, did see the distance between their
salaries and those of District Court judges reduced somewhat; and, at the same time, they were told that full parity
for them would be put into effect the next time salaries were adjusted (alas, a promise not to be kept).
13 Frequently, New York City’s changes in the salaries of its legislators and high level officials have served as the catalyst
for State legislative action to change the salaries of comparable State-level officials.