Majority
Section 256 of the Executive Law (L 1971, ch 387) places the Probation Department of Nassau County un
The only explicit reference to the Probation Department, in the Constitution is found in section 5 of article XVII, which empowers the Legislature to "provide for the maintenance and support of institutions for the detention of persons charged with or convicted of crime and for systems of probation and parole of persons convicted of crime.” The judiciary’s past authority over the Nassau County Probation Department derived solely from legislation (Code Crim Pro, § 938-d) which vested in the Judges of the County and Family Court power to appoint directors of probation and certify payrolls for employees of the Probation Department. Then, in 1962, the Constitution was amended to provide for a unified court system (NY Const, art VI). Central to constitutional reorganization of the court system was the concept that the general supervisory powers formerly granted to individual courts should pass to the Administrative Board of the Judicial Conference (NY Const, art VI, § 28). Thereafter we recognized that the Probation Departments were subject to the supervision and control of the board rather than the individual courts designated by statute (Matter of Kleinman v McCoy, 19 NY2d 292 ; McCoy v Helsby, 28 NY2d 790 ). In neither of these cases however did we consider or decide whether the Probation Department is for all purpose constitutionally a part of the unified court system.
In Kleinman (p 295) the New York City Labor Department had certified the collective bargaining agent for all probation officer trainees and probation officers employed in the courts in New York City. This was done pursuant to an agreement between the Administrative Board and the city, and the petitioners claimed that this was an invalid delegation of the board’s constitutional power of "administrative supervision” of the "court system”. We held that it was not since "[i]n
This does not mean however that these agencies are expressly, or even necessarily, an integral part of the unified court system. Since their relationship to the administration of justice itself is although often intimate, always collateral, it is reasonable that their place in the judicial scheme should depend solely in legislation.
Our later decision in McCoy v Helsby (supra, p 791 ) is not to the contrary. There the question was whether the application of the Taylor Law to Probation Department employees conflicted with the board’s supervisory powers over the court system. Although we upheld the application of the law to nonjudicial employees as a "reasonable limitation” on the "exercise of this power” we took occasion to note that "It may be that some future legislative action would so deeply cut at the basic fibre of administrative power as to be violative of section 28 of article VI of the Constitution.” In stating this caveat we simply meant to indicate that so long as these agencies performed functions in the court system, the power to supervise and control those functions was in the board and might not be abridged by legislation.
In sum, the Constitution grants to the Legislature the power to maintain and support Probation Departments. The establishment of the unified court system did not necessarily affect this grant of power any more than it impaired the legislative power to build courthouses, staff them with nonjudicial employees, or supply them with facilities, supplies, or building maintenance. In the final analysis judicial control over the regulation of employment in those agencies depended solely on existing statutory authority which the Legislature was free to withdraw (see, e.g., City of New York v Maltbie, 274 NY 90 , 97). Thus by enacting chapter 387 of the Laws of 1971 (now Executive Law, § 256) which transferred jurisdiction over the civil service in the Probation Department to the county executives, the Legislature did not violate article VI of the State Constitution.
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in Per Curiam opinion.
Orders reversed, without costs, and the judgments of Supreme Court, Nassau County, reinstated.-
Cases cited
- Cullum v. O'Mara 43 AD2d 140 p. 75, p. 76
- Taylor v. Sise 33 NY2d 357 p. 76
- Posner v. Rockefeller 75 Misc 2d 875 p. 76
- Posner v. Rockefeller 26 NY2d 970 p. 76
- Hidley v. Rockefeller 28 NY2d 439 p. 76
- St. Clair v. Yonkers Raceway, Inc. 13 NY2d 72 p. 76
- Burke v. Sugarman 35 NY2d 39 p. 76, p. 78
- Mangano v. City of New York 34 NY2d 135 p. 76, p. 77
- Farrington v. Pinckney 1 NY2d 74 p. 76
- McAneny v. Board of Estimate & Apportionment 232 NY 377 p. 76
- Ricker v. Village of Hempstead 290 NY 1 p. 76
- Trustees of the Village of Saratoga Springs v. Saratoga Gas, Electric Light & Power Co. 191 NY 123 p. 76
- People v. Tremaine 252 NY 27 p. 76
- In re Richardson 247 NY 401 p. 76
- Arverne Bay Construction Co. v. Thatcher 278 NY 222 p. 76
- Schieffelin v. Goldsmith 253 NY 243 p. 76
- Barton Trucking Corp. v. O'Connell 7 AD2d 36 p. 76
- Crowley v. Milone 55 Misc 2d 660 p. 76, p. 77
- McCoy v. Helsby 28 NY2d 790 p. 76, p. 77, p. 79
- People v. Friedman 302 NY 75 p. 76
- People v. Kupprat 6 NY2d 88 p. 76
- Hogan v. Culkin 18 NY2d 330 p. 76
- Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. Eisenberg 18 NY2d 1 p. 76
- Loew v. Interlake Iron Corp. 183 Misc 303 p. 76
- People ex rel. Chadbourne v. Voorhis 236 NY 437 p. 76, p. 78
- O'Hara v. City of New York 46 App Div 518 p. 76
- O'Hara v. City of New York 167 NY 567 p. 76
- O'Hara v. City of New York 28 Misc 258 p. 76
- Huffmire v. City of Brooklyn 162 NY 584 p. 76
- Rindone v. Marsh 183 Misc 10 p. 76
- Mullane v. McKenzie 269 NY 369 p. 76, p. 78
- Commercial Casualty Insurance v. Roman 270 NY 563 p. 76
- Fornara v. Schroeder 261 NY 363 p. 76, p. 77
- Sandford v. Finegan 276 NY 70 p. 76, p. 77
- Miller v. Bromley 184 Misc 676 p. 77
- Weiss v. Bromley 185 Misc 7 p. 77
- Szymborski v. County of Onondaga 62 Misc 2d 179 p. 77
- Kleinman v. McCoy 19 NY2d 292 p. 77, p. 79
- Brown-Lipe Gear Co. v. Ferris 275 NY 418 p. 77
- Wendell v. Lavin 246 NY 115 p. 77
- People ex rel. Town of Pelham v. Village of Pelham 215 NY 374 p. 77
- People ex rel. Metropolitan Street Railway Co. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners 174 NY 417 p. 77
- Frey v. McCoy 35 AD2d 1029 p. 77
- Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks v. MacDonald 253 NY 234 p. 77
- Lanning v. Carpenter 20 NY 447 p. 77
- In re Anonymous 21 AD2d 48 p. 77
- Devoy v. Mayor of New York 36 NY 449 p. 77
- People ex rel. Swift v. Luce 204 NY 478 p. 77
- Chase v. Falk 8 AD2d 655 p. 77
- Chase v. Falk 7 NY2d 817 p. 77
- Mendelson v. Kern 278 NY 568 p. 77
- Town of Stony Point v. McDonnell 70 Misc 2d 490 p. 77
- Goldstein v. Lang 16 NY2d 735 p. 77
- Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. H. W. E. Realty Co. 188 Misc 111 p. 78
- Abate v. Mundt 25 NY2d 309 p. 78
- Abate v. Mundt 403 US 182 p. 78
- Carter v. Board of Supervisors 25 NY2d 420 p. 78
- Society of the New York Hospital v. Johnson 9 Misc 2d 73 p. 78
- Society of the New York Hospital v. Johnson 5 AD2d 552 p. 78
- Society of the New York Hospital v. Johhson 5 NY2d 102 p. 78
- Mongeon v. People 55 NY 613 p. 78
- Corrigan v. Joseph 304 NY 172 p. 78
- Foy v. Schechter 1 NY2d 604 p. 78
- People ex rel. Navano v. Van Nort 64 Barb 205 p. 78
- Roistacher v. McCoy 32 NY2d 479 p. 78
- Ainsberg v. McCoy 26 NY2d 56 p. 78
- Millis v. Young 29 NY2d 778 p. 78
- DeSalvo v. Murray 262 NY 573 p. 78
- Baldwin v. McCoy 35 AD2d 1059 p. 78
- Village of Williston Park v. Israel 191 Misc 6 p. 78
- Village of Williston Park v. Israel 301 NY 713 p. 78
- Powers v. La Guardia 181 Misc 624 p. 78
- Powers v. La Guardia 292 NY 695 p. 78
- Briguglio v. New York State Board 24 NY2d 21 p. 78
- City of New York v. Maltbie 274 NY 90 at 97 p. 80