Top Court to Review Judicial Pay Decision
The New York Law Journal by Joel Stashenko - NEWSBRIEFS - July 1, 2009
The Court of Appeals informed parties in Maron v. Silver yesterday that it will hear an appeal as of right in the case in which state judges are seeking a pay raise from the Legislature and governor. Court spokesman Gary Spencer said letters sent yesterday to the attorneys indicated that the Court will hear the case in its normal course, meaning after a full briefing schedule. It typically takes the Court about seven months to hear oral arguments in a case after accepting an appeal, and another month to hand down a written ruling. A 4-1 Appellate Division, Third Department panel dismissed Maron v. Silver, 58 AD 3d 102 (NYLJ, Nov. 14, 2008). Also yesterday, the Court denied as unnecessary a motion for leave to appeal filed by the Maron plaintiffs, who had sought to appeal either as of right, because a substantial constitutional question is directly involved in the case, or through a leave grant. Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman took no part in considering the leave-to-appeal request. He has indicated that because he is a plaintiff in one of the suits, he would recuse himself from any judicial pay litigation that reaches the Court. Lawyers in the two other judicial pay suits pending in the courts, Chief Judge v. Governor and Larabee v. Governor, have indicated that they would like their cases to be consolidated with Maron and for the Court of Appeals to decide the pay raise question at the same time.
Posts
2 comments:
Why is the Court of Appeals hearing his case?
Since each judge has a direct financial interest in any decision, this is a clear conflict of interest and in clear violation of every ethic and rule they are required to uphold.
Also, any second grader knows that the job of the court it to apply the law, and not make the law, which is what they are planning on doing.
total joke !
Post a Comment