Mr. Nussbaum agreed with Mr. Bezanson that the Third Department was “fundamentally wrong” in holding that plaintiffs must show an “adverse impact” on the operations of the judiciary.
“The threat of creating [a] less than qualified bench is enough,” said Mr. Nussbaum.
“Basically, you are saying that the judicial salary has reached an unconstitutional level?” asked Justice Peter Tom, who presided over the panel.
“Yes,” Mr. Nussbaum replied. When a chief judge of the Court of Appeals makes less than even a “summer associate at my firm,” it is “impossible” to attract the “competent and intelligent people you need on the bench,” he added.
But when Mr. Dolan was asked the same question by Justice Tom, Mr. Dolan replied, “There is no such level.”
“[W]e all need to have a little more confidence in voters,” Mr. Dolan maintained, who serve as the “ultimate check” on the balance of powers and have been “deeply skeptical” of backing a judicial pay raise.
Chief Judge Kaye, in her suit, claims Supreme Court justices’ salaries should be on par with the $169,300 a year earned by federal District Court judges.
The summary judgment motion filed by the chief judge and motion to dismiss filed by the governor and legislative leaders are pending before Justice Lehner.
Justices Luis A. Gonzalez and Eugene L. Nardelli joined Justices Moskowitz, Renwick and Tom on yesterday’s panel.
In addition to Mr. Bezanson, George Bundy Smith and J. Carson Pulley of Chadbourne represent the four judges.
In addition to Mr. Dolan, David J. Katz and Eric S. Groothus of Schlam Stone represent the state and Governor David A. Paterson.
Assistant Solicitor General Julie Sheridan, who represented the Assembly and Senate and did not argue before the First Department, joined in the state’s papers.
Bernard Nussbaum argues in front of, from left, Judges Karla Moskowitz, Luis A. Gonzalez, Peter Tom, Eugene L. Nardelli and Dianne T. Renwick.
