Court rejects claims by trio of judges that New York's judicial age limit is unconstitutional | amNewYork

"In his ruling to deny the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to bar the state court system from enforcing the retirement mandates, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lyle Frank said that, for New York's new equal rights amendment to apply to their case, the judges would need to show that the age limits violate a civil right of theirs. The judges have not shown, nor is the Court aware of, a civil right consisting of the ability to remain a judge, Frank wrote."

"David Scharff, a senior partner at Morrison Cohen, said in a statement to amNewYork Law that Frank made a fundamental error in its constitutional interpretation of the problem presented and improperly narrowed the scope of the civil right being challenged by the State and OCA, age-related employment discrimination and at the same time ignored the legislative predicates in New York that have outlawed such age-related employment discrimination."

Three judges — Appellate Division, Second Department Justice Robert Miller, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Richard Montelione and Staten Island Supreme Court Justice Orlando Marrazzo Jr. — sued the state and the Office of Court Administration alleging judicial age limits violate New York's new equal rights amendment approved with 62% of the vote. Under current laws, Miller and Marrazzo, who turned 76 this year, must step down after Dec. 31, while Montelione, who turned 70, must regularly prove competency to remain on the bench. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lyle Frank denied a preliminary injunction, writing that the judges had not shown a civil right to remain a judge. The judges are appealing to the Appellate Division, First Department, and plaintiffs' counsel argue the ruling misinterpreted constitutional scope and ignored age-discrimination legislative predicates.

Read at www.amny.com