Challenge to Mandatory Retirement Age for New York Judges Rejected
By: Joseph T. Burns
On November 24, 2025, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lyle Frank denied a request by state court judges to invalidate New York State’s mandatory retirement age for judges. The plaintiffs are all sitting Justices of the New York State Supreme Court who will be forced to retire at the age of 76.
Under the New York State Constitution and the Judiciary Law, most state judges are forced to retire at the age of 70. State Supreme Court Justices, however, may seek certifications from the New York State Office of Court Administration that allow them to serve three, two-year extensions until they reach the age of 76 when they must step down as judges.
The plaintiffs in this case argued that the Equal Rights Amendment to the state constitution that was approved by New York voters at the 2024 General Election makes the mandatory judicial retirement age unconstitutional. While the ERA did not remove the mandatory retirement provisions of the state constitution, the plaintiffs argued that that provision was repealed by implication.
In his decision, Justice Frank, while denying the relief requested by the plaintiffs, expressed some skepticism that the mandatory retirement age for judges was still wise and sound public policy. Justice Frank, however, noted that that is a determination for the state legislature, not the courts. The mandatory retirement age that was challenged was originally set in 1869.
A similar challenge to the mandatory judicial retirement age was heard earlier this year in Wayne County Supreme Court. The plaintiffs in that case were two county court judges who were approaching the mandatory retirement age of 70. Like the Supreme Court Justices in the Manhattan case, the plaintiffs in the Wayne County case argued that the mandatory judicial retirement age was made unconstitutional by the Equal Rights Amendment. The judge hearing the Wayne County challenge disagreed and upheld the mandatory retirement age.
Although this latest ruling leaves New York’s mandatory retirement age fully intact, the litigation is likely far from over. The plaintiffs in the Manhattan case have already stated that they will appeal the decision denying their requested relief. Lawyers, sitting judges, and potential judicial candidates would be wise to follow how this appeal unfolds.
