New York State Court Officers Association v. Hite ( 2022 )

18-3221
New York State Court Officers Association v. Hite
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A
SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY
FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN
CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE
EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION
“SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON
ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the
City of New York, on the 27th day of July, two thousand twenty-two.
PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
Circuit Judges.*
————————————————————————
NEW YORK STATE COURT OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION, ON ITS OWN BEHALF
AND ON BEHALF OF ITS CURRENT
AND RETIRED MEMBERS AND THEIR
DEPENDENTS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. No. 18-3221-cv
REBECCA A. CORSO, IN HER OFFICIAL
*
Judge Peter W. Hall, originally a member of the panel in this case, died on March 11, 2021.
The two remaining members of the panel, who are in agreement, authorized the issuance of
this Summary Order. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d); 2d Cir. IOP E(b); United States v. Desimone,
140 F.3d 457, 458-59 (2d Cir. 1998).
CAPACITY AS ACTING COMMISSIONER
OF THE NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE,
CAROLINE W. AHL, IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE
NEW YORK STATE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, LANI V. JONES, IN HER
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK
STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
ROBERT F. MUJICA, JR., IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE NEW
YORK STATE DIVISION OF THE
BUDGET, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, JANET DIFIORE, IN HER
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF JUDGE
OF THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM,
Defendants-Appellees.**
————————————————————————
FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS: STEPHEN G. DENIGRIS, The DeNigris
Law Firm, PLLC, Albany, NY.
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: FREDERICK A. BRODIE, Assistant
Solicitor General (Barbara D. Underwood,
Solicitor General, Andrea Oser, Deputy
Solicitor General, on the brief), for Letitia
James, Attorney General, State of New
York, Albany, NY.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of
**
The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above. To the extent that
former state officials were sued in their official capacity, current officeholders are substituted
as defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).
2
New York (Mae A. D’Agostino, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-Appellant the New York State Court Officers Association
(“NYSCOA”) appeals the judgment of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York (Mae A. D’Agostino, J.) granting summary
judgment to Defendants-Appellees, various State officials (collectively, “the
State”) on all claims in this contractual and constitutional dispute growing out of
the State’s 2011 decision to alter its rates of contribution to retired former
employees’ health insurance plans. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
facts, the procedural history of the case, and the specifications of issues on
appeal, which we set forth only as necessary to explain our decision.
We reserved decision in this case pending disposition of Donohue v. Hochul,
No. 18-3193-cv, which was designated both in the district court and in this Court
as the lead case of eleven related cases alleging breach of contract and
constitutional contract-impairment claims involving the alteration of State health
insurance contribution rates for retirees. Following this Court’s final disposition
of Donohue, we directed the parties in this and the other related cases “to file
3
letter-briefs stating their views on how their case should be resolved in light of
Donohue v. Cuomo (‘Donohue II’), 980 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2020), Donohue v. Cuomo
(‘Donohue III’), 38 N.Y.3d 1 (2022), and Donohue v. Hochul, [32 F.4th 200 (2d Cir.
2022)] (‘Donohue IV’),” addressing in particular “the extent to which anything in
the collective bargaining agreements at issue in the case, or any other
circumstances specific to the case, distinguish the case from Donohue.” ECF No.
106 at 2. The State filed such a supplemental letter-brief, and NYSCOA filed a
letter informing this Court that it does not oppose the State’s filing. We construe
that non-opposition as a concession that this case is materially indistinguishable
from Donohue and therefore that we should affirm the district court’s grant of
summary judgment on the same grounds as we did in Donohue IV.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
4