Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Mary Ann KILLEEN, John J. Honan, Helen Mazur, as Executrix of the Estate of Edward V. Mazur, Deceased, Peter J. Notaro, Victor E. Manz, Frank A. Sedita, Jr., John F. O'Donnell, Anthony P. Lo Russo, Timothy J. Trost, James H. Dillon and Sharon S. Townsend, All Being Present or Past Judges of Family Court of County of Erie and “John Judge” and “Jane Judge”, Representing All Those Presently Unknown Individuals Who May During the Pendency of this Litigation Become Judges of Family Court of County of Erie, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Matthew T. CROSSON, As Administrative Judge and Chief Administrator of Courts of State of New York and as Representative of Administrative Board of the Courts of State of New York, Defendant-Respondent, Edward V. Regan, As Comptroller of State of New York, and State of New York, Defendants-Appellants.
Defendants Edward V. Regan, as Comptroller of the State of New York, and the State of New York (collectively, State) contend that, based on the evidence presented at trial, a rational basis exists for the disparity between the salaries of Sullivan County Family Court Judges and Erie County Family Court Judges. We agree (see, Affronti v. Crosson, 95 N.Y.2d 713, 723 N.Y.S.2d 757, 746 N.E.2d 1049). The record establishes that the median home values were 26.2% higher in Sullivan County, yet the salary disparity was only 1.96%. We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the order granted November 18, 1997, by dismissing the first four causes of action and that part of the fifth cause of action concerning the claim of plaintiff Frank A. Sedita, Jr. arising out of his service as a Family Court Judge, and by vacating the award of attorney's fees on those claims.
The State further contends that Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff Frank A. Sedita, Jr. relief on that part of the fifth cause of action concerning his claim arising out of his service as a City Court Judge because the claim is time-barred. The State waived the affirmative defense of the Statute of Limitations by failing to raise that affirmative defense in its answer or motion to dismiss. In any event, that contention is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not properly before us (see generally, Sovik v. Healing Network, 244 A.D.2d 985, 988, 665 N.Y.S.2d 997). Consequently, we remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine the amount of attorney's fees to which plaintiff Sedita is entitled on that claim.
Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings.
MEMORANDUM:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 08, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)