SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ALBANY
In the Matter of the Application of
CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC.,LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO,
STATE OF NEW YORK UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, JONATHAN LIPPMAN, as Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York Unified Court System, LAURENCE K. MARKS, Administrative Director of the State of New York Unified Court System,
Index No. 4212-05
RJI No. 01-05-8T5834
For a judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
-------------------------------------~-------~-----------------------------------
Supreme Court, Albany County: CPLR Article 78 Special Term: January 13, 2006 Hon. Dan Lamont, Acting J.S.C., presiding
NANCY E. HOFFMAN, ESQ., General Counsel
By: RICHARD V. STEWART, JR., ESQ., of Counsel for Petitioner
MICHAEL COLODNER, ESQ., General Counsel By: PEDRO MORALES, ESQ., of Counsel
for Respondents
Petitioner Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1 000, AFSCME,
AFL-CIO, brings this CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking an order and judgment: (1)
declaring respondents' policy change on reclassification of Court Clerk positions as
outlined in respondent Marksl memorandum dated March 22, 2005 to be arbitrary,
capricious and contrary to law; and (2) ordering respondents to rescind such change in
policy, and to cease and de~ist from such action. The respondents have filed an Answer,
asserting as an affirmative defense that the Petition fails to state a cause of action upon
which relief may be granted.
On or about March 22, 2005, respondent Marks issued a memorandum
concerning Court Clerk (JG-18) and Senior Court Clerk (JG-21) titles. Said memorandum
was addressed to the Administrative Judges of Judicial Districts 3 through 8. Respondent
Marks directed that when the responsibility for providing security in a court transfers to the
Unified Court System, the Court Clerks (JG-18) assigned to such court will no longer be
reclassified to the Senior Court Clerk title (JG-21). The memorandum went on to explain
that the Senior Court Clerk title was classified JG-21 to reflect the additional security
supervisory responsibilities that the Court Clerk performed in courts where security was
provided by court system personnel. Respondent Marks explained that in courts where the
Unified Court System is responsible for security, Court Clerks will no longer be expected
to supervise the court system uniformed personnel, i.e. Court Officers. Respondent Marks
further stated that in the absence of this additional responsibility, there is no basis for
reclassifying Court Clerks (JG-18) to Senior Court Clerks (JG-21).
The change in classification policy does not apply to the First and Second Judicial Departments.1 The memorandum noted that, in thos~,pepartments, employees with "Court Clerk" titles are statutory peace officers (see, CPL § 2.10(21 )(b». Employees
| 1 |
The First and Second Judicial Departments are comprised |
of the First, Second, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth Judicial Districts.
within Judicial Districts 3 through 8 in "Court Clerk" titles are not statutory peace officers.
STANDARD OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
The responsibilities of the Chief Administrative Judge ("CAJ") include broad
classification and allocation authority for employee positions within the Unified Court
System (Judiciary Law § 211 (1 )(d); 22 NYCRR § 25.5(a); see, Matter of Bellacosa v.
Classification Review Bd. of the Unified Ct. 8ys. of the State of New York, 72 NY2d 383, 391[1988]). This "power lies at the heart of the CAJ's authority to administer the unified
court system" (Id). Given this broad authority, position classification decisions by the CAJ
"will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing that they are wholly arbitrary or without
any rational basis" (Cove v. Sise, 71 NY2d 910,912 [1988]).
Petitioner contends that the typical duties, as outlined in the title standards
for the Senior Court Clerk title (JG-21) and the Court Clerk title (JG-18), are substantially
the same-the primary exception being that the Senior Court Clerk title includes the
additional task of supervising uniformed court personnel assigned to maintain security in
court parts. Apparently,the Unified Court System has undertaken, or is in the process of
undertaking, court security responsibility in all of New York State's Judicial Districts.
Petitioner notes that the title standard for the Senior Court Clerk (JG-21)
makes no mention of statutory peace officer status. Petitioner argues thfJt there will be no
o •.
substantive differences between the duties performed by Court Clerks in Judicial Districts
3 through 8 and those of Court Clerks in Judicial Districts 1 and 2 and 9 through 12-once
the Unified Court System has assumed court security responsibility in all of New York
State's Judicial Districts. Petitioner argues that respondents' decision to change the
policy, solely within the Third through Eighth Judicial Districts-to that of no longer upgrading Court Clerk positions to Senior Court Clerk positions when the Unified Court System assumes security responsibility in a court-is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law.
Pursuant to § 2.10(21 )(b) of the Criminal Procedure Law, Court Clerks in the First and Second Judicial Departments are specifically designated as peace officers. Peace officers have numerous statutory powers, including: to use physical and deadly force in making an arrest or preventing an escape; to carry out warrantless searches and make warrantless arrests; to issue appearance tickets, when ?cting pursuant to a special duty; and to take into custody a firearm not owned by the peace officer for the purpose of disposing or guarding the firearm (see, Criminal Procedure Law § 2.20(1 ». Senior Court Clerks in the First and Second Departments receive peace officer training and, if they request it, firearm training. ~he Senior Court Clerks receive 35 hours of peace officer training, including the following areas: legal status and powers of peace officers; rules for possession and control of firearms; law of arrest; law of search and seizure; accusatory instruments and appearance tickets; technique and mechanics of making an arrest; technique and mechanics of conducting an investigation; and safeguarding of firearms.
Respondents also state that Senior Court Clerks are part of the security force deployed at a court facility and provide backup to uniformed court security apersonnel. Respondents also emphasize that Senior Court Clerks in the First and Second Judicial Departments are now required to wear a uniform blazer to emphasize their security role. Finally, respondents argue that Senior Court Clerks in the First and Second Judicial Departments are under an affirmative statutory duty to perform acts which cannot be
4
performed by Court Clerks in Judicial Districts 3 through 8. Respondents point out that:
(1) Court Clerks in Judicial Districts 3 through 8 no longer directly supervise courtroom
security personnel; and (2) Court Clerks in Judicial Districts 3 through 8 are not statutorily
designated peace officers. The statutory classification of Court Clerks in the First and
Second Judicial Departments as peace officers, together with their role as backup to
uniformed court security, constitutes respondents' justification for continuing the application
of the JG-21 salary grade solely to Court Clerks within the First and Second Departments.
In the Petition and the Reply Memorandum of Law, petitioner argues that the
peace officer classification has no relation to the duties performed by Senior Court Clerks.
Petitioner also scoffs at the suggestion that Senior Court Clerks serve in a backup security
role. Specifically, petitioner notes "[t]here is no record evidence that a Senior Court Clerk
has ever been, or will ever be, called into security duties as a back-up." (Petitioner's Reply
Memorandum of Law: p 12). Finally, petitioner argues that respondents' actions violate
Civil Service Law § 115, which provides that it is the policy of the state to provide equal pay
Upon considering the additional "back-up" security duties, and the additional
.-
training and additional statutory powers of Senior Court Clerks in the First and Second
Judicial Departments, this Court holds and determines that respondents' determination to
cease upgrading Court Clerk positions (JG-18) to Senior Court Clerk positions (JG-21 ))n Q •
Judicial Districts 3 through 8 was reasonable and rationale. A court reviewing an agency
determination cannot "substitute" its own judgment for that of the agency (see, Waghschal
v. Board of Examiners of the Board of Education of New York, 69 NY2d 672 [1986]). This
Court will not interfere with a classification determination of the Chief Administrative
Judge-which determination is presumed to be rational and reasonable, and must not be
disturbed unless petitioner demonstrates that such determination is wholly arbitrary and
without any rational basis (Cove v. Sise, supra; see, Donegan v. Nadel, 113 AD2d 676,
680-681 [2nd Dept. 1986]). This Court holds and determines that respondents have
presented a sufficient rational basis for their administrative determination to cease
upgrading Court Clerk positions (JG-18) to Senior Court Clerk positions (JG-21) in Judicial
Districts 3 through 8 when the Unified Court System assumes court security responsibility
for courts within such judicial districts. Accordingly, this Court holds and determines that
the Petition should be and the same is hereby dismissed.
This Court holds and determines that the Petition should be and the same
is hereby dismissed in its entirety without costs. This memorandum shall constitute both
the Decision and Judgment of the Court. All papers, including this Decision and Judgment,
are being returned to the r~spondents' attorney. The signing of this Decision and
Judgment shall not constitute entry or filing under CPLR § 2220. Legal counsel are not
relieved from the applicable provisions of that section respecting filing, entry and notice of
It is ADJUDGED that the Petition is dismissed.
Albany, New York March 3, 2006
cc: ~ichard V. Stewart, Jr., Esq.
Pedro Morales, Esq.
. DAN LAMONT, Acting J.S.C.
