IN RE: CENTER FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeals (1) from two judgments of the Supreme Court (Jennifer Sober, J.), entered August 14, 2024 in Albany County, which, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, among other things, granted respondents' motions to dismiss the petition/complaint;  (2) from an order of said court, entered August 14, 2024 in Albany County, which denied petitioners' motion for sanctions and other relief, and (3) upon transfer from the Court of Appeals, from an order of said court (Sara McGinty, J.), entered November 14, 2024 in Albany County, which denied petitioners' motion to vacate, renew and reargue.

Petitioner Elena Ruth Sassower, acting pro se and purporting to represent petitioner Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc., commenced this combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and action for declaratory judgment against various governmental entities and officials in 2024.  This was prompted by a December 2023 report recommending salary increases for judges across New York issued by respondent Commission on Legislative, Judicial and Executive Compensation and then incorporated into respondent Governor Kathy Hochul's proposed budget bill.

In initiating the proceeding/action, petitioners sought various forms of relief, including a preliminary injunction precluding the salary increases from taking effect, transferring the proceeding/action to federal court and seeking that respondent Attorney General Letitia James appoint independent counsel to represent them (hereinafter motion 1).  All respondents, aside from the Commission, opposed the sought-after relief and cross-moved to dismiss the petition/complaint on the basis that, among other things, petitioners' claims were not ripe for review (hereinafter motion 2).  Petitioners subsequently cross-moved to, among other things, impose costs and sanctions on the Attorney General and certain staff, as well as to disqualify these individuals and refer them for disciplinary action and criminal prosecution (hereinafter motion 3).  The Commission separately moved to dismiss the petition/complaint as against it for failure to effectuate proper service (hereinafter motion 4).

Supreme Court (Sober, J.) issued two judgments and an order on these various motions on the same day in August 2024.  The court issued a judgment with respect to both motions 1 and 2 finding that it was not required to transfer the proceeding/action to federal court and that petitioners had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits as the challenge to the appropriations was unripe and, flowing from that determination, the court granted the specified respondents' motion to dismiss.  Separately, with respect to motion 3, the court issued an order denying petitioners' motion for costs, sanctions and disqualification of the Attorney General and associated staff.  Finally, with respect to motion 4, the court issued a judgment granting the Commission's motion and dismissed the proceeding/action against it for failure to effectuate proper service.  Sassower appeals from these two judgments and the order.¹

In September 2024, petitioners filed a new motion seeking, among other things, to renew, reargue and/or vacate the August 2024 judgments and order (hereinafter motion 5).  In a November 2024 order, Supreme Court (S. McGinty, J.) denied motion 5 and Sassower appealed directly to the Court of Appeals, which subsequently transferred the appeal to this Court.

We affirm each judgment and order before us.  We briefly note that many of the arguments Sassower presently advances are duplications of those which she has put forth in the past (see Matter of Center for Jud. Accountability, Inc. v New York State Joint Commn. on Pub. Ethics, 228 AD3d 1148, 1149 [3d Dept 2024], appeal dismissed 43 NY3d 934 [2025];  Center for Jud. Accountability, Inc. v Cuomo, 167 AD3d 1406, 1408 [3d Dept 2018], appeal dismissed 33 NY3d 993 [2019], lv dismissed & denied 34 NY3d 961 [2019] ).

“[T]he Rule of Necessity provides an exception to [Judiciary Law § 14]” (Matter of Center for Jud. Accountability, Inc. v New York State Joint Commn. on Pub. Ethics, 228 AD3d at 1149).  Thus, contrary to Sassower's argument, Supreme Court was not divested of jurisdiction by virtue of Judiciary Law § 14.  Relatedly, because of the shared pecuniary interest among all judges in litigation involving judicial salaries, the Rule of Necessity was properly invoked (see Matter of Center for Jud. Accountability, Inc. v New York State Joint Commn. on Pub. Ethics, 228 AD3d at 1149;  Center for Jud. Accountability, Inc. v Cuomo, 167 AD3d at 1408;  Pines v. State of New York, 115 AD3d 80, 90–91 [2d Dept 2014], appeal dismissed 23 NY3d 982 [2014];  see also Matter of Miller v. State of New York, ––– NY3d ––––, ––––, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op 03907, *3 n 5 [2026];  Maresca v. Cuomo, 64 N.Y.2d 242, 247 n 1 [1984], appeal dismissed 474 U.S. 802 [1985] ).²  In the same vein, Sassower's request for removal to federal court was properly denied (see 28 USC §§ 1441[a];  1446[a];  Matter of Center for Jud. Accountability, Inc. v New York State Joint Commn. on Pub. Ethics, 228 AD3d at 1149).  All told, the court (Sober, J.) did not err in denying these aspects of motion 1.

We next turn to whether Supreme Court properly granted respondents' motions seeking dismissal.  This combined action/proceeding was commenced by order to show cause, yet neither the Commission nor its chair were properly served with process by any authorized means within the time set by the order to show cause (see CPLR 312, 312–a;  see also Matter of Curto v State of N.Y. Dept. of Pub. Serv., 140 AD3d 1339, 1340 [3d Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 911 [2017] ).  Sassower attempted service on the Attorney General, however, this was ineffective inasmuch as the Commission had not obtained the Attorney General's representation at that point or authorized the Attorney General to accept service on its behalf (see Matter of Hyundai Capital Am., Inc. v Marina, 233 AD3d 1318, 1319–1320 [3d Dept 2024] ).  As a result of this failure, the court did not err in granting motion 4 seeking to dismiss the claims against the Commission.  The court also properly granted motion 2 and dismissed the remainder of the combined action/proceeding as unripe.  Namely, the appropriations that underlie Sassower's challenge had not been voted on, let alone passed, by the Legislature at the time of commencement of this action/proceeding (see Matter of Paychex, Inc. v Department of Taxation & Fin., 251 AD3d 1369, 1372 [3d Dept 2026];  Site Safety LLC v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 237 AD3d 1395, 1396 [3d Dept 2025];  see also New York Pub. Interest Research Group v Carey, 42 N.Y.2d 527, 531–532 [1977] ).  Sassower's claim that ripeness is a nonissue because this is a “citizen-taxpayer action” is belied by the specific arguments which underlie the petition/complaint.

We likewise find that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying that aspect of motion 3 seeking disqualification of the Attorney General's office and the imposition of sanctions and other penalties against the Attorney General and specified staff (see Executive Law § 63[1];  Rules of Chief Admr of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 130–1.1;  Matter of Center for Jud. Accountability, Inc. v New York State Joint Commn. on Pub. Ethics, 228 AD3d at 1149;  Matter of Cobado v. Benziger, 163 AD3d 1103, 1107 [3d Dept 2018];  Matula v. Matula, 159 AD3d 1074, 1076 [3d Dept 2018] ).

Finally, with respect to the November 2024 order on motion 5, Supreme Court (S. McGinty, J.) did not abuse its discretion in denying renewal as the motion was not based upon the existence of any new facts or changes in the law which would warrant such relief (see Walden v. Varricchio, 195 AD3d 1111, 1115 [3d Dept 2021];  Wright v. State of New York, 192 AD3d 1277, 1278–1279 [3d Dept 2021] ).  Similarly, petitioners' conclusory and unsupported allegations of fraud were insufficient to support vacatur (see CPLR 5015[a][3];  Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v LeTennier, 251 AD3d 97, 101 [3d Dept 2026];  Matter of Romine v. New York Pub. Serv. Commn., 209 AD3d 1197, 1199 [3d Dept 2022], appeal dismissed 39 NY3d 1060 [2023] ).

Sassower's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be unavailing.³

ORDERED that the judgments and the orders are affirmed, without costs.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Supreme Court dismissed all claims brought on behalf of the Center for Judicial Accountability as Sassower is not an attorney and, consequently, may not advance arguments on behalf of that entity (see CPLR 321[a] ).  No issue has been taken with this determination and, therefore, we construe the appeals as being taken on behalf of only Sassower.

2.   For these same reasons, we find Sassower's argument that this Court has been divested of jurisdiction to be meritless.

3.   Sassower now seeks, among other things, a declaration that Chapter 60, Part E of the Laws of 2015 is unconstitutional.  However, the petition/complaint did not seek such a declaration and thus her request is not properly before this Court (see Kelsey v. Lenore R., 211 AD3d 1361, 1363 [3d Dept 2022], appeal dismissed 39 NY3d 1091 [2023];  Green Harbour Homeowners' Assn., Inc. v G.H. Dev. & Constr., Inc., 14 AD3d 963, 967–968 [3d Dept 2005] ).

Powers, J.

Pritzker, J.P., Ceresia and Corcoran, JJ., concur.