What did the court decide in plain terms?

The Appellate Division ruled that the Chief Administrator of the Courts, not local Surrogates, has the constitutional authority to appoint Chief Clerks and Deputy Chief Clerks for Surrogates' Courts.

Who is affected by this decision?

Surrogates' Courts across New York, current and future Chief Clerks and Deputy Chief Clerks, and local Surrogates who previously relied on SCPA appointment authority are affected.

Why does the constitutional provision matter more than the statute?

Because the Chief Administrator's appointment power comes from the State Constitution (article VI, § 28), it supersedes any conflicting statute that had placed appointment power with local Surrogates.

Can this decision be appealed further?

Yes; the Office of Court Administration (or another aggrieved party) could seek leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, subject to that court's discretionary review.

Mosey v. Office of Ct. Admin.

Docket 194 CA 25-00553

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilReversed

Filed: Apr 24, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Reversed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02538
Docket: 194 CA 25-00553

Appeal from a judgment in an article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action in Supreme Court, Erie County, concerning appointment authority for Surrogates' Court chief clerks.

Summary

The Appellate Division reversed Supreme Court and held that the Chief Administrator of the Courts has the exclusive constitutional authority to appoint Chief Clerks and Deputy Chief Clerks of the Surrogates' Courts. The case arose from Erie County Surrogate Acea M. Mosey seeking a declaration that she had appointment power under the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act. The court concluded those statute-based appointment provisions are superseded by New York Constitution article VI, § 28 and implementing law and regulations vesting appointment authority in the Chief Administrator because the positions are nonjudicial officers within the Unified Court System.

Issues Decided

Whether the term "nonjudicial personnel" in Judiciary Law § 211(1)(d) includes Chief Clerks and Deputy Chief Clerks of the Surrogates' Courts.
Whether New York Constitution article VI, § 28 and related regulations vest appointment authority for those positions in the Chief Administrator of the Courts to the exclusion of local Surrogates.
Whether statutory appointment provisions in the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act (SCPA) are superseded by the constitutional authority of the Chief Administrator.

Court's Reasoning

The court determined that, despite SCPA provisions assigning appointment power to local Surrogates, the 1977 Constitution (article VI, § 28) vests broad administrative authority in the Chief Administrator over the Unified Court System, including appointment of nonjudicial officers. The Chief Clerks and Deputy Chief Clerks perform administrative, nonjudicial functions (e.g., signing records, administering oaths, supervising disclosure), analogous to referees, so they qualify as nonjudicial personnel. Because the Chief Administrator's appointment power derives from the State Constitution, it overrides inconsistent statutory provisions.

Authorities Cited

New York Constitution, article VI, § 28
Judiciary Law § 211(1)(d)
Matter of Met Council v Crosson84 NY2d 328 (1994)
Surrogate's Court Procedure Act (SCPA) §§ 2605, 2606, 2609
22 NYCRR 80.1

Parties

Petitioner: Acea M. Mosey
Plaintiff: Acea M. Mosey
Respondent: Office of Court Administration
Defendant: Office of Court Administration
Judge: Catherine R. Nugent Panepinto
Judge: Lindley, J.P.
Judge: Smith, J.
Judge: Greenwood, J.
Judge: Delconte, J.

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-24
Supreme Court judgment entered: 2024-09-10

What You Should Do Next

1
For the Chief Administrator/Office of Court Administration
Implement appointment processes for Chief Clerks and Deputy Chief Clerks consistent with article VI, § 28 and 22 NYCRR 80.1, and communicate the change to Surrogates' Courts statewide.
2
For local Surrogates
Review current staffing and appointment arrangements and coordinate with the Office of Court Administration regarding transition or reappointment of Chief Clerk positions.
3
For affected employees
Consult with counsel or personnel officials about how this ruling affects employment status, appointment terms, and any administrative reassignments.
4
For any party considering further review
If seeking additional review, prepare an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals promptly, noting applicable deadlines and standards for discretionary review.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide in plain terms?: The Appellate Division ruled that the Chief Administrator of the Courts, not local Surrogates, has the constitutional authority to appoint Chief Clerks and Deputy Chief Clerks for Surrogates' Courts.
Who is affected by this decision?: Surrogates' Courts across New York, current and future Chief Clerks and Deputy Chief Clerks, and local Surrogates who previously relied on SCPA appointment authority are affected.
Why does the constitutional provision matter more than the statute?: Because the Chief Administrator's appointment power comes from the State Constitution (article VI, § 28), it supersedes any conflicting statute that had placed appointment power with local Surrogates.
Can this decision be appealed further?: Yes; the Office of Court Administration (or another aggrieved party) could seek leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, subject to that court's discretionary review.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Mosey v Office of Ct. Admin. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02538

Mosey v Office of Ct. Admin.

2026 NY Slip Op 02538

April 24, 2026

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

HON. ACEA M. MOSEY, PETITIONER-PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION, RESPONDENT-DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Decided on April 24, 2026

194 CA 25-00553

Present: Lindley, J.P., Smith, Greenwood, And Delconte, JJ.

LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (PATRICK A. WOODS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FEATHERSTONHAUGH, CLYNE & MCCARDLE, LLP, ALBANY (JAMES D. FEATHERSTONHAUGH OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order and judgment) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Catherine R. Nugent Panepinto, J.), entered September 10, 2024, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and declaratory judgment action. The judgment, inter alia, declared that the term nonjudicial personnel in Judiciary Law § 211 (1) (d) does not apply to Chief Clerks and Deputy Chief Clerks in Surrogates' Courts.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the decretal paragraphs are vacated, the petition-complaint insofar as it seeks relief pursuant to CPLR article 78 is denied, and judgment is granted in favor of respondent-defendant as follows:

It is ADJUDGED and DECLARED that: (1) the term "nonjudicial personnel" in Judiciary Law § 211 (1) (d) applies to and includes the Chief Clerks and Deputy Chief Clerks of the Surrogates' Courts of the State of New York; (2) article VI, § 28 of the New York Constitution supersedes sections 2605 and 2606 of the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act; and (3) Judiciary Law § 211 and 22 NYCRR 80.1, through the authority of article VI, § 28 of the New York Constitution, vest the Chief Administrator of the Courts with the power and authority to appoint the Chief Clerks and Deputy Chief Clerks of the Surrogates' Courts of the State of New York to the exclusion of the Surrogates.

Memorandum: This hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action arises from a dispute between petitioner-plaintiff (plaintiff), who is the Erie County Surrogate, and respondent-defendant (defendant) over who has the authority to appoint the Chief Clerks and Deputy Chief Clerks of the Surrogates' Courts—the respective local Surrogates or the Chief Administrator of the Courts (Chief Administrator). Plaintiff commenced this proceeding-action seeking, inter alia, a declaration that she held the authority to make appointments to the Chief Clerk and Deputy Chief Clerk positions in Erie County Surrogate's Court. Supreme Court agreed with plaintiff and, inter alia, granted declaratory relief effectively providing her with the relevant appointment authority to the exclusion of the Chief Administrator. We reverse inasmuch as we conclude that the Chief Administrator, to the exclusion of the respective Surrogates, possesses the power and authority to appoint the Chief Clerks and Deputy Chief Clerks of the Surrogates' Courts.

It is undisputed that the plain terms of Surrogate's Court Procedure Act article 26, enacted in 1966, placed the authority to appoint the Chief Clerks and Deputy Chief Clerks with the respective Surrogates (
see
SCPA 2605 [1], [2]). Notwithstanding that statutory provision, however, New York Constitution, article VI, § 28, effective in 1977, "expressly vests the Chief Administrator, on behalf of the Chief Judge, with the broad power to supervise the
administration and operation of the Unified Court System" (
Matter of Met Council v Crosson
, 84 NY2d 328, 334-335 [1994]). The Unified Court System includes the Surrogates' Courts (
see
NY Const, art VI, § 1). "The powers of the Chief Judge are said to be 'complete' and may be exercised fully by the Chief Administrator on behalf of the Chief Judge" (
Met Council
, 84 NY2d at 335). On behalf of the Chief Judge, those powers include the power to appoint and remove "all nonjudicial officers and employees" with exceptions not presently relevant (22 NYCRR 80.1 [b] [3];
see
Judiciary Law § 211 [1] [d];
see also Met Council
, 84 NY2d at 335).

Although the Chief Clerks and Deputy Chief Clerks of the Surrogates' Courts possess significant authority, we agree with defendant that they are, nevertheless, nonjudicial officers. The Chief Clerks, for example, have the authority to sign papers or records of the courts, to adjourn matters, to administer oaths, to supervise disclosure and, in certain circumstances, to hear and report matters to the Surrogates (
see
SCPA 506 [6] [a]; 2609). Such responsibilities, however, are akin to those of referees (
see
SCPA 506; CPLR 4201), which are themselves "nonjudicial officers of the court appointed to assist it in the performance of its judicial functions" (
Met Council
, 84 NY2d at 332;
see generally
CPLR 4312 [5];
People v Davis
, 13 NY3d 17, 25-26 [2009]). Thus, given the "nature of the position[s]," we agree with defendant that the Chief Clerks and Deputy Chief Clerks of the Surrogates' Courts are nonjudicial positions and, "[a]s such, they are subject to the constitutional appointment power of the Chief Administrator, notwithstanding [article 26 of the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act]. Since the appointment powers of the Chief Administrator flow from the State Constitution, they cannot be abrogated by statute" (
Met Council
, 84 NY2d at 335).

Entered: April 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn