A New York Supreme Court ruling has declared that the state’s mandatory retirement age for city court judges outside New York City is unconstitutional. This decision affects judges over the age of 70, who argued that the law discriminates against them based on age. The ruling highlights the importance of age discrimination protections under the state’s Equal Rights Amendment.
The case, Saltarelli v. State of New York, was filed on January 2, 2026, by Mark E. Saltarelli and Michael Misiaszek, both city court judges who are 70 years old. The judges claimed that Judiciary Law § 23, which mandates retirement at age 70, violates their rights under the New York State Constitution and the New York State Human Rights Law. The court’s decision could have significant implications for age discrimination laws in New York.
Background
Mark E. Saltarelli serves as a city court judge in Tonawanda, New York, while Michael Misiaszek serves in Oneida. Both judges are facing retirement due to the state law that prohibits judges from serving beyond the age of 70. Saltarelli did not seek reelection because the state informed him that he was ineligible to continue serving. Misiaszek alleged he was wrongfully required to vacate his office early due to the same law.
The dispute arose after New Yorkers voted in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in November 2024, which expanded protections against discrimination to include age. The judges argued that the mandatory retirement law discriminates against them based solely on their age, and thus violates the ERA. The state, represented by various officials including Governor Kathy Hochul, sought to dismiss the case, arguing that the law was constitutional.
The Ruling
Judge Patrick J. O'Sullivan of the New York Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating that Judiciary Law § 23, as it applies to city court judges outside New York City, is unconstitutional. The court found that the law discriminates against judges based on age, violating the protections established by the ERA. Judge O'Sullivan stated, “The State has failed to meet its burden under a strict scrutiny analysis and finds that Judiciary Law § 23... violates the ERA by discriminating against petitioners solely based upon their age.”
The court emphasized that age is now considered a suspect class under the ERA, which necessitates a higher standard of scrutiny for laws that discriminate based on age. The ruling also pointed out that the state did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the mandatory retirement age as a means to ensure judicial competence.
Impact
This ruling sets a significant precedent for age discrimination protections in New York. It clarifies that age-based discrimination laws must be scrutinized under strict standards, particularly following the enactment of the ERA. The decision could pave the way for other individuals facing age discrimination in various sectors, as it reinforces the principle that age should not be a barrier to employment or service in public roles.
The ruling affects not only the petitioners but also other city court judges who may now challenge similar age-based restrictions. It opens the door for potential legal actions against age discrimination in other public service roles, which could reshape how age is treated in employment law across the state.
What's Next
The state may appeal the ruling, as it raises significant questions about the constitutionality of age restrictions in public service roles. Additionally, there may be related cases pending that could further clarify the implications of the ERA on age discrimination laws. The outcome of this case could influence future legislation regarding age and employment in New York.