Nearly two dozen judges decide not to return to bench

One Supreme Court justice in Queens and 18 more throughout the state decided to stay retired after they were offered a seat on the bench last week.  Eagle file photo by Andy Katz

By Jacob Kaye

It was a brief stint in retirement for a handful of older judges who returned to the courts this week after having their applications for recertification originally denied last year. 

In all, 19 New York Supreme Court justices returned to the bench throughout the state and began hearing cases Tuesday, according to the Office of Court Administration. In Queens, four justices returned to the courts, including Supreme Court Justices Bernice Siegal, Ira Margulis, Joseph Esposito and Daniel Lewis. 

All four were denied recertification in 2020 as the OCA cut ties with 46 judges over the age of 70 in an effort to reduce the agency’s budget. Two other justices from Queens who were let go last fall did not return Tuesday. 

Queens Supreme Court Justice Maureen Healy is awaiting the approval of paperwork and Justice Richard Buchter decided not to reapply. 

But the story is different in other counties, which will remain short on justices after scores decided not to accept the invitation to return. Statewide, 14 justices who had their recertification approved in the spring decided not to return this week. 

“It's been a difficult situation, because OCA has not really come forward and given total assistance to the judges,” said Queens Supreme Court Justice Carmen Velasquez, who also serves as the president of the Association of Supreme Court Justices of the State of New York. “I am so sad that some judges have decided not to come back because of the circumstances presented by OCA.”

Among the complaints of some of the judges forced into retirement who decided not to return, was a rushed process presented by the OCA’s process for inviting them back felt rushed, an uncertainty as far as which court they’d return to and complications with paying back the pension they’ve been collecting for six months. 

One judge, who wished to remain anonymous, told Velasquez that they didn’t know where they'd be presiding just four days before they were set to return, a sentiment echoed by several other judges. 

The returning judges were also left without a staff. Some of the judges felt it may be difficult to hire a law clerk or secretary, who may know that the job is likely only to last for 18 months. 

The judge told Velesquez that they were “hurt,” by the forced retirement. 

“The bottom line is I’m staying retired,” the judge wrote to Velasquez. 

If a judge began collecting a pension during their early retirement, they’ll have to pay it back at some point or another if they decide to return. It’s the OCA’s policy that judges can’t collect a pension and receive a salary at the same time. 

That’s the situation for Esposito, who was told by the OCA after working for the next two years, his total pension will be recalculated. Then, if he decides to retire for good at the end of his term, he can work out a payment plan to pay back the six months of pension he collected. 

“[They said they’d do] an actuarial equation and figure out how long it’ll take you to pay it back then [they’ll] take it out of your pension,” Esposito told the Eagle last week.

But for Esposito, paying back a pension is a small price to pay for getting back to work. 

“I like to work, I’m a worker,” he said. “I'm looking forward to going back to my chambers.”