Bill to push back mandatory retirement age for judges moves through Senate
/
A bill to push the mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court justices from 70 to 76 is backed by State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal. AP file photo by Hans Pennink
By Noah Powelson
A constitutional amendment that would extend the mandatory retirement age for New York’s judges began making its way through Albany on Wednesday.
The bill, sponsored by State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz, would raise the required retirement age from 70 to 76 years old as a means to keep judges on the bench.
The bill, which was passed by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee this week, would also extend the recertification process for judges who hit the maximum retirement age, and would allow judges to continue serving on the bench until they are 80.
If the bill one day goes into effect, the changes would apply to justices of the Supreme Court, as well as judges of the Court of Appeals, Court of Claims, County Court, Surrogate's Court, Family Court, Court for the City of New York and District Court.
The bill was passed unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and currently sits in the Senate Rules Committee.
Hoylman-Sigal said the current age restriction represents an outdated policy.
“New York State has not updated the mandatory retirement age for our judges in over 125 years,” Hoylman-Sigal told the Eagle in a statement. “The truth is that these days people live, and remain mentally competent, for far longer than they did at the turn of the 20th century and our state constitution should reflect that.”
“Our amendment, which passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee today, would begin the process of amending the New York State Constitution to raise the mandatory retirement age for judges in New York to 76 years old, an age more appropriately in line with present day standards,” Hoylman-Sigal added.
In order to change the mandatory retirement age for judges, lawmakers have to change the state’s constitution, putting the bill on a long road toward passage.
Even if it passes the Assembly and State Senate this year, the bill would need to pass both chambers for two consecutive sessions, then win a majority vote by New Yorkers in a general election before it could go into law.
The earliest it could possibly go into effect is 2027, but if it fails to garner enough votes or public support, its enactment could be delayed to 2028 or beyond.
Hoylman-Sigal introduced the bill previously in 2024, but it died in the Rules committee.
A companion bill sponsored by Dinowitz currently sits in the Assembly’s Judiciary Committee as well.
"Although there have been efforts to address the shortage in the number of judges in New York, we still face a backlog of cases. Every option should therefore be considered,” Dinowitz told the Eagle in a statement. “Legislation like mine, which would raise the age by six years to seventy-six, would help tackle the backlog. I am committed to continue to work on this issue while ensuring that our judicial system keeps judges who are well versed in the law on the bench.”
Neither version has garnered co-sponsors yet, but judicial leaders have voiced their support.
Queens Supreme Court Justice Carmen Velasquez, who is also the president of the Queens County Supreme Court Justices’ Association, told the Eagle the organization supports the bill.
A spokesperson from the Office of Court Administration said court officials were in the process of reviewing the bill.
The Hoylman-Sigal/Dinowtiz constitutional amendment is one of many legislative initiatives elected officials have taken in hopes of maintaining and expanding the number of active judges in the state. As case backlog continues to plague courtrooms across the state following the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, government leaders have attempted to find new ways to expand the number of judges who can oversee cases.
Last year, Hoylman-Sigal and Assemblymember Charles Lavine introduced a bill that would remove the age requirement entirely for judges sitting on the state’s village or city courts outside of New York City. The bill did not cover judges working in the Supreme Court so that it would not have to be passed as a constitutional amendment.
“We are not in a position to waste our assets,” Lavine told the Eagle last year when the bill was first introduced. “We are still facing a substantial backlog of cases as a result of the COVID pandemic and anything that we can do to ease that backlog is certainly in the best interests of the people of the state of New York and in the best interests of justice.”
At the same time last February, Dinowitz introduced his own bill into the Assembly that would have made the recertification of judges 70 years or older a pro forma process. Currently, judges have to make their recertification appeal to the Administrative Board of the Courts and prove they are mentally fit, physically fit and if there is a proven need for them on the bench.
Still other elected officials are introducing legislation that would not just keep long-time judges, but open up seats for new ones.
Hoylman-Sigal also introduced, along with Manhattan Assemblymember Alex Bores, the Uncap Justice Act this year. The bill, another constitutional amendment, would eliminate the constitutionally-mandated equation for determining the number of Supreme Court justices in each New York county. If it passes the legislature and a general election by New York voters, it would end the limit that allocates one Supreme Court justice per 50,000 residents of the district.
It was recently passed out of committee on a 12-4 vote, and has received strong bipartisan support from state lawmakers, the governor and district attorneys.
But others disagree with how the Uncap Justice Act handles the issue, arguing removing the population limit would give legislators too much authority determining which judicial districts get new seats.
Another bill sponsored by Dinowitz and Queens State Senator Leroy Comrie seeks to modify, instead of outright remove, the population limit from 50,000 to 30,000. Dinowitz has said modifying the formula is the most efficient solution to bringing in more judges that can address case backlog.
“The most important solution to this backlog is to change the formula that limits the number of Supreme Court Justices in each judicial district to one per 50,000 population," Dinowitz told the Eagle in a statement.
