CJA-v-Governor

CJA's January 29, 2013 letter to Chief Administrative Judge A. Gail Prudenti - "RE: (1) Clarifying the Judiciary’s Budget for Fiscal Years 2013-2014 & 2012-2013: (a) The dollar amounts sought by the Judiciary for judicial salary increases; (b) The dollar amounts sought by the Judiciary for “compensation and non-salary benefits for judges and justices of the unified court system”, exclusive of salary; and (2) Production of the Judiciary’s findings of facts and conclusions of law with respect to CJA’s October 27, 2011 Opposition Report and People’s lawsuit based thereon against New York State’s three governmental branches and highest constitutional officers ,CJA, et al. v. Cuomo, et al., to void the three-phase judicial salary increases"

CJA's January 31, 2013 e-mail to Office of Court Administration Communications Office -- "Subject: Questions Regarding the Judiciary's Budgets for Fiscal Years 2013-2014 and 2012-2013"

CJA's February 4, 2013 e-mail to Judiciary -- "Subject: Awaiting Your Answers: Questions Regarding the Judiciary's Budgets for Fiscal Years 2013-2014 and 2012-2013"

WITH EXECUTIVE BRANCH:

CJA's February 1, 2013 letter to Governor Andrew Cuomo -- "RE: Discharging Your Constitutional Duty with Respect to the Judiciary Budget Request for Funding of the Judicial Salary Increases Recommended by the August 29, 2011 'Final' Report of the Special Commission on Judicial Compensation"

CJA's February 5, 2013 e-mail to Division of Budget -- "Subject: Waiting to Hear from You: What Review Does the Division of Budget Do of the Judiciary Budget?"

CJA's February 1, 2013 letter to Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli & Attorney General Eric Schneiderman -- "RE: Discharging Your Constitutional Duty with Respect to the Judiciary Budget Request for Funding of the Judicial Salary Increases Recommended by the August 29, 2011 'Final' Report of the Special Commission on Judicial Compensation"
-- referred-to January 22, 2013 press release of Attorney General
& January 22, 2013 press release of Comptroller

WITH LEGISLATIVE BRANCH:

CJA's January 30, 2013 letter to Temporary Senate President Dean Skelos & Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver -- "RE: Enabling the Legislative Committees Directly Responsible for Oversight of the Judiciary’s Budget to Discharge their Mandatory Legislative Function

CJA's January 30, 2013 letter to Senate Finance Committee: Chair John DeFrancisco & Ranking Member Liz Krueger; Assembly Ways and Means Committee: Chair Herman D. Farrell, Jr. & Ranking Member Robert Oaks; Senate Judiciary Committee: Chair John J. Bonacic & Ranking Member Ruth Hassell-Thompson; Assembly Judiciary Committee: Chair Helene E. Weinstein & Ranking Member Tom McKevitt -- "RE: February 6, 2013 Joint Legislative Hearing on 'Public Protection': The Legislature’s Mandatory Duty to Override the Judiciary’s Request for “funding for the next phase of the judicial salary increase”, in Discharge of its Checks-and-Balance Constitutional Function"

ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING MATERIALS,
REFERRED TO & RELIED UPON DURING FEBRUARY 6, 2013 TESTIMONY:

As to the constitutional requirement of itemization in the budget -- & the power & duty of the Legislature to reject a budget whose lack of itemization prevents meaningful review

Supreme Court decision in Pines, et al. v. New York State

"'While the Constitution requires itemization of the State budget and appropriation bills to implement the budget (Saxton v. Carey, 44 N.Y.2d 545, 548...(1978) citing People v. Tremaine, 281 N.Y.1, 5...[1939]), there is no constitutional definition of itemization (Saxton, 44 N.Y.2d at 550, quoting and essentially adopting Judge Breitel's dissent in Hidley v. Rockefeller, 28 N.Y.2 439...[1971]). Consequently, it has been held that,

...the degree of itemization necessary in a particular budget is whatever degree of itemization is necessary for the Legislature to effectively review that budget. Should the Legislature determine that a particular budget is so lacking in specificity as to preclude meaningful review, then it will be the duty of that Legislature to refuse to approve such a budget...

(Saxton, 44 N.Y.2d at 550). ...If the legislature determines that a budget is not sufficiently itemized then it should decline to adopt it; however, once adopted the logical inference can be drawn that the legislature found the budget to be sufficiently itemized and capable of implementation."

See cases -- Saxton v. Carey; People v. Tremaine (II); Hidley v. Rockefeller

-- NOTE: the quality of "justice" in NY's courts: the fraudulence of the Supreme Court decision in Pines v NYS, imposing a liability of $51 million upon the State for judicial salary raises purportedly passed by the Legislature in 2009
-- read page 6 of the decision describing the Assembly & Senate floor debates -- & compare transcript of Assembly debate & transcript of Senate debate

click here for: the Judgment:
"ORDERED, that [NYS] shall cause the sum of Fifty-One Million Six Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Nine ($51,006,759) Dollars, for the 2009-2010 appropriation adjusting the compensation of the judges and justices of the Unified Court System, to be allocated and forthwith paid..."

record-appeal: Pines v. NYS

Comment by Legislators at prior three joint buget hearings as to the need for greater itemization by the Judiciary in its budget:

January 30, 2012 joint budget hearing on "public protection":
video -- at 3:21-3:27; 25:05-27:00 ; transcript -- at pp. 25-27.

transcript excerpts: (1) Chief Administrative Judge Prudenti's passing mention of "process for adjusting judicial salaries"; pp. 25-27 exchange with Senator Bonacic on "more itemization from the Judiciary in line items"

February 9, 2011 joint budget hearing on "public protection":
video at 3:16-4:11; 17:54-19:55 ; transcript -- at pp 23-25; 32-46.;

transcript excerpt: Chief Administrative Judge Pfau's thanks Legislature for "judicial compensation law that was recently enacted, with the salary commission"; explanation of Judiciary budget; exchanges with Senator Bonacic; Senator Nozzolio; and Senator DeFrancisco on greater itemization

February 8, 2010 joint budget hearing on "public protection":
transcript -- at pp. 37-47; 47-52 ;

transcript excerpts: Chief Adminisrative Judge Pfau's request for judicial supplemental support fund; exchange with Assemblyman Parment on greater itemization in Judiciary's budget; exchange with Senator DeFrancisco on judicial supplemental support fund

note: also see: Assembly 6-month expenditure reports

ON THE STATUTORY LINK BETWEEN JUDICIAL SALARIES
& DISTRICT ATTORNEY SALARIES

see CJA's October 27, 2011 Opposition Report; at p. 24
        -- referred-to September 2, 2011 NYLJ article "Raises for Justices Mean Higher Pay for Some D.A.s"

Testimony of Shaun Byrne, Acting Commissioner of Division of Criminal Justice Services --
& the colloquy between him and then Senator Saland
at the January 30, 2012 joint budget hearing on "public protection" --
     video -- at 1:51:40 - 1:51:58 and 1:53:15 - 1:56:50 transcript at pp. 103; 104-107

           Division of Criminal Justice Services -- 2013 "Yellow Book" summary -- "District Attorney Salary Reimbursement: "The Executive proposes a total of $3.9 million, an increase of $1.05 million from SFY 2012-13 level, to support the full cost of local district attorney salary increases that are tied to scheduled increases in judicial compensation."
       -- compare to 2012 "Yellow Book" summary -- "The Executive proposes...an increase of $530,000 in General Fund support to provide to counties for costs associated with district attorney salary increases, which would be tied to judicial compensation that is scheduled to take effect on April 1, 2012."

* * *

click here for: MENU OF CJA's JUDICIAL COMPENSATION WEBPAGES

Top

CJA Homepage • Latest News • Join Us • Site Search

P.O. Box 8101, White Plains, New York 10602Tel: 914-421-1200e-mail: mail@judgewatch.org

P.O. Box 8101, White Plains, New York 10602
Tel: 914-421-1200
e-mail: mail@judgewatch.org