ALBANY - A midlevel appeals court has rejected judges' claims that they must get pay raises because a decade of inflation has unconstitutionally eroded their earnings.

The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court in Albany, in a 4-1 ruling Thursday, dismissed one of three pending lawsuits meant to boost pay for 1,250 state-level judges.

The majority said New York's constitution gives authority over judicial pay to the Legislature, finding no evidence lawmakers withheld raises to punish judges.

The appellate justices said that while it is “undisputed” that judges deserve a raise, the judiciary's ability to function is not imminently threatened, even if a number of judges have resigned.

The ruling reverses part of a ruling by a lower court to allow the case to proceed.

“While we agree ... that the failure to increase judicial salaries in the face of substantial inflation represents a policy choice that is ill-considered at best, it is the N.Y. Constitution itself that places the discretion to make such a choice with the Legislature,” Justice Thomas Mercure wrote.

He noted that even after the state's Compensation Clause meant to protect judges' independence was amended in 1925, their pay rates often remained unchanged for long periods, including 21 years from 1926 to 1947 and 18 years from 1957 to 1975.

Mercure dismissed as “highly speculative” the lawsuit's claim that judges were facing retaliation from lawmakers for rulings on capital punishment, separation of powers and school funding.

He noted that their pay was tied to raises for lawmakers and the executive branch, undercutting that argument.

“In sum, petitioners have failed to allege a discriminatory attack on the judicial branch that has impaired the Judiciary's independence and ability to function, as necessary to state a cause of action based upon the separation of powers,” Mercure wrote. Justices Robert Rose, John Lahtinen and Anthony Kane concurred.

Of the two other pending cases in other courts, Mercure wrote that his ruling “should in no way be interpreted as expressing any opinion” regarding the claim in her suit by state Chief Judge Judith Kaye that judicial compensation is “substantively inadequate.”

In a partial dissent, Justice Karen Peters, agreeing with the lower court, said the suit should be allowed to continue with claims that the diminished actual value of their pay affected judicial independence, forcing judges to prematurely quit, and that a motivating force was lawmaker retaliation for recent court rulings.