BILL NUMBER:S4587A

TITLE OF BILL:
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY
proposing an amendment to section 25 of article 6 of the constitution, in
relation to retirement of judges and justices

This measure is being introduced at the request of the Chief Judge of
the State and the Chief Administrative Judge.

This measure would amend section 25(b) of Article VI of the State
Constitution to increase the mandatory retirement age for all judges
and justices of the Unified Court System (except for justices of the
Town and Village courts, for whom there would remain no constitutional
retirement age, and judges of the Court of Appeals for whom mandatory
retirement would continue at age 70) from 70 to 74. The measure also
would make a corresponding change in the Constitution's provision
permitting Justices of the Supreme Court and Judges of the Court of
Appeals to continue in service to the Supreme Court past the mandatory
retirement age for up to three two-year terms provided the State's
Administrative Board certifies that they are able and competent to do
so and that their services are needed to expedite court business.
Thus, retiring Justices who remain in good health and for whose
services there remains a need could serve until the end of the year
in which they turn 80. Lastly, this measure would establish age 74 as
the mandatory retirement age for City Court Judges outside New York
              

City, superseding the current statutory age 70 retirement requirement
for these judges.(1)

Each year, the court system loses many competent judges who are
required to leave the bench for no other reason than the fact that
they have attained age 70. This has been the constitutional
mandatory retirement age for over 150 years(2) and it has long since
ceased to hear any meaningful relationship to an individual's ability
to discharge the duties of a judge effectively and productively.
While age 70 as a retirement age might have made sense in the
mid-19th century, when the average life expectancy was in the 40's, it
makes little sense today when the average 65-year old can be expected
to live into his or her 80's.

More than merely affecting the lives of individual judges, our
arbitrary and obsolete mandatory retirement age operates to
shortchange tile larger community by depriving it of the value of a
judge's accumulated wisdom and experience on the bench.
In the eyes of many, judging is a "late peak" occupation in that
judicial performance tends to improve with age, and is likely to best
be discharged later in life.(3) Medical research supports this view and
refutes the constitutional presumption that the kind of disabilities
that would interfere with a judge's effective discharge of his or
her duties begin appearing at age 70. Indeed, studies have shown
that there is no decline in average intelligence until age 80, and
that healthy older adults actually perform better than younger
people in select areas such as knowledge about their profession and
life.(4) Given the volume and complexity of so much of the litigation
that comes before New York's courts each year, the State can ill
afford annually to send some of its most experienced judges packing


for no other reason than that they have reached an age that was
arbitrarily chosen in the mid19th century and that many no longer
regard as old or the occasion for infirmity.

Notably, as of the late 1990's, many other states, as well as the
Federal Government had recognized that judges perform effectively
well beyond their 70th year. A significant majority of states
nationwide either compelled judicial retirement at age 72 or above, or
had no mandatory retirement age at all.(5). The Federal Judiciary, of
course, has never had any retirement age at all.

The choice of 74 as a new mandatory retirement age (and that of 80 for
ending the certificated judicial service of retired Justices of the
Supreme Court) reflects respect for the community's paramount need
for experienced jurists, its concern that there be a retirement age
more in keeping with contemporary understanding of the aging process
and its interest in ensuring a continuing influx of new blood into
the Judiciary.

2010 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
OCA 2010-87

FOOTNOTES:
(1) See Judiciary Law §23. There is no reason to exclude City Court
Judges from their other judicial colleagues for purposes of fixing a
constitutional retirement age. All of these judges have been subject
to the same retirement age since long before the adoption of the
present Judiciary Article in the State's Constitution, in 1962.

(2) Age 70 was imposed as the retirement age via amendment to the
Constitution's judiciary article in 1869. Prior to that time,
judges were subject to mandatory retirement at age 60.

(3) See Richard A. Posner, Aging and Old Age, University of Chicago
Press, at 180-181 (1995).

(4) See Staudinger, Cornelius & Baltes, The Aging of Intelligence:
Potential and Limits, 503 The Annals 43, 45 (1989). Despite
age-related declines in learning ability and memory performance,
healthy older adults demonstrate superior performance in selected
domains such as knowledge of their profession and life matters, and
in pragmatic aspects of intellectual functioning such as creativity
and wisdom ("wisdom" defined as the advanced cognitive development
and mastery over one's emotions that comes with age, experience,
introspection, reflection, intuition and empathy; and
"creativity" as the ability to apply unique, feasible solutions
to new situations).

(5) As of this writing, only 19 of the 50 states compelled judicial
retirement for their judges at age 70. Of the remaining 31, 17 states
have no retirement age for their judges, while the rest impose
retirement at ages ranges from 72 to 90.

                                BILL NUMBER:S4587B

TITLE OF BILL:
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY
proposing an amendment to section 25 of article 6 of the constitution, in
relation to retirement of judges and justices

This measure is being introduced at the request of the Chief Judge of
the State and the Chief Administrative Judge.

This measure would amend section 25(b) of Article VI of the State
Constitution to increase the mandatory retirement age for all judges
and justices of the Unified Court System (except for justices of the
Town and Village courts, for whom there would remain no
constitutional retirement age, and judges of the Court of Appeals for
whom mandatory retirement would continue at age 70) from 70 to 74.
The measure also would make a corresponding change in the
Constitution's provision permitting Justices of the Supreme Court and
Judges of the Court of Appeals to continue in service to the Supreme
Court past the mandatory retirement age for up to three two-year
terms provided the State's Administrative Board certifies that they
are able and competent to do so and that their services are needed to
expedite court business. Thus, retiring Justices who remain in good
health and for whose services there remains a need could serve until
the end of the year in which they turn 80. Lastly, this measure would
establish age 74 as the mandatory retirement age for City Court
              

Judges outside New York City, superseding the current statutory age
70 retirement requirement for these judges.(1)

Each year, the court system loses many competent judges who are
required to leave the bench for no other reason than the fact that
they have attained age 70. This has been the constitutional mandatory
retirement age for over 150 years,(2) and it has long since ceased to
bear any meaningful relationship to an individual's ability to
discharge the duties of a judge effectively and productively. While
age 70 as a retirement age might have made sense in the mid-19th
century, when the average life expectancy was in the 40's, it makes
little sense today when the average 65-year old can be expected to
live into his or her 80's.

More than merely affecting the lives of individual judges, our
arbitrary and obsolete mandatory retirement age operates to
shortchange the larger community by depriving it of the value of a
judge's accumulated wisdom and experience on the bench.
In the eyes of many, judging is a "late peak" occupation in that
judicial performance tends to improve with age, and is likely to best
be discharged later in life.(3) Medical research supports this view and
refutes the constitutional presumption that the kind of disabilities
that would interfere with a judge's effective discharge of his or her
duties begin appearing at age 70. Indeed, studies have shown that
there is no decline in average intelligence until age 80, and that

healthy older adults actually perform better than younger people
in select areas such as knowledge about their profession
and life.(4) Given the volume and complexity of so much of
the litigation that comes before New York's courts each year,
the State can ill afford
annually to send some of its most experienced judges packing for no
other reason than that they have reached an age that was arbitrarily
chosen in the mid19th century and that many no longer regard as old
or the occasion for infirmity.

Notably, as of the late 1990's, many other states, as well as the
Federal government had recognized that judges perform effectively
well beyond their 70th year. A significant majority of states
nationwide either compelled judicial retirement at age 72 or above, or
had no mandatory retirement age at all.(5) The Federal Judiciary, of
course, has never had any retirement age at all.

The choice of 74 as a new mandatory retirement age (and that of 80 for
ending the certificated judicial service of retired Justices of the
Supreme Court) reflects respect for the community's paramount need
for experienced jurists, its concern that there be a retirement age
more in keeping with contemporary understanding of the aging process
and its interest in ensuring a continuing influx of new blood into
the Judiciary.

2010 Legislative History:
OCA 2010-87

2011 Legislative History:
OCA 2011-30
Senate 4587-A (Bonacic) (Passed)

FOOTNOTES:
(1) See Judiciary Law §23. There is no reason to exclude City Court
Judges from their other judicial colleagues for purposes of fixing a
constitutional retirement age. All of these judges have been subject
to the same retirement age since long before the adoption of the
present Judiciary Article in the State's Constitution, in 1962.

(2) Age 70 was imposed as the retirement age via amendment to the
Constitution's judiciary article in 1869. Prior to that time, judges
were subject to mandatory retirement at age 60.

(3) See Richard A. Posner, Aging and Old Age, University of Chicago
Press, at 180-181 (1995).

(4) See Staudinger, Cornelius & Baltes, The Aging of Intelligence'
Potential and Limits, 503 The Annals 43, 45 (1989). Despite
age-related declines in learning ability and memory performance,
healthy older adults demonstrate superior performance in selected
domains such as knowledge of their profession and life matters, and

in pragmatic aspects of intellectual functioning such as creativity
and wisdom ("wisdom" defined as the advanced cognitive development
and mastery over one's emotions that comes with age, experience,
introspection, reflection, intuition and empathy; and "creativity" as
the ability to apply unique, feasible solutions to new situations).

(5) As of this writing, only 19 of the 50 states compelled judicial
retirement for their judges at age 70. Of the remaining 31, 17 states
have no retirement age for their judges, while the rest impose
retirement at ages ranges from 72 to 90.