Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• improved service to the public through reallocation of judicial and staff resources; • a reduction in backlog and improved case disposition time due to improved court calendars and case management practices; • judges hearing a wider range of cases than before unification; and “The New York Courts, as presently structured, are inefficient, outdated, and badly in need of reform.” – Association of Judges of the Family Court of the State of New York, January 2007 • standardization of local rules, policies and procedures to support the countywide structure of court operations. 64 It should be noted that California is twice as populous as New York and its court system is the largest in the nation. California’s state courts serve over 36 million people, employ more than 2,000 judicial officers and 19,000 court employees, and hear more than eight million cases each year. 65 To state the obvious, the California model shows that a large and sprawling state need not have a correspondingly complicated court structure. Many Other States In addition to New Jersey and California, New York lags far behind many other states which have successfully consolidated and simplified their court structures over the last fifty or more years. Several states followed in the footsteps of New Jersey and California’s courts during the 1950s (e.g., Delaware), 1960s (e.g., Colorado) and the 1970s (e.g., Iowa, Illinois, Connecticut and Washington D.C.). 66 Similarly, many other states in the nation have structurally unified systems, including Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Connecticut, and Arkansas. 64 Id. 65 See California Judicial Branch, Fact Sheet, April 2006, available at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/factsheets/Calif_Judicial_ Branch.pdf 66 See THE SIGNIFICANCE OF JUDICIAL STRUCTURE, supra note 48, at 4. 32 A Court System for the Future, February 2007
In short, when it comes to the structure and efficiency of its court system, New York – which rightly prides itself on being a capital of business, finance, culture and the arts – is an embarrassing backwater. New Yorkers should no longer tolerate the political intransigence and status-quo thinking that have stymied past efforts at court reform. It is time to create a twentyfirst century court system in New York. A Court System for the Future, February 2007 33
Page 1 and 2: ACOURT SYSTEM FOR THE FUTURE: THE P
Page 3 and 4: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS On July 17, 2006,
Page 5 and 6: A. Vincent Buzard Partner, Harris B
Page 7 and 8: Counsel to the Commission</
Page 9 and 10: More fundamentally, the fragmented
Page 11 and 12: “New York has the most complex an
Page 13 and 14: “For 30 years, New York’s trial
Page 15 and 16: — SECTION ONE — THE CURRENT STR
Page 17 and 18: system grew exponentially. By the t
Page 19 and 20: issue from the Supreme Court or a c
Page 21 and 22: igation, family-related matters or
Page 23 and 24: Article VI of the New York State Co
Page 25 and 26: The Appellate Division was establis
Page 27 and 28: CURRENT STRUCTURE Court of Appeals
Page 29 and 30: state Constitution on November 4, 1
Page 31: jurisdiction would become Superior
Page 35 and 36: Given this reality, it is in the in
Page 37 and 38: The following is the testimonial of
Page 39 and 40: “Notwithstanding the results of t
Page 41 and 42: for by HRA) because my welfare bene
Page 43 and 44: husband told the judge that I was a
Page 45 and 46: Costs to Individuals, Businesses, M
Page 47 and 48: appear as witnesses), or to family
Page 49 and 50: The Tweed Commission</stron
Page 51 and 52: Court upstate as well as the transf
Page 53 and 54: y the Legislature and were approved
Page 55 and 56: proposed a concurrent resolution to
Page 57 and 58: efforts), make the case for reform
Page 59 and 60: Groups representing the indigent al
Page 61 and 62: Commercial Division of the New York
Page 63 and 64: safety and facilitate access to spe
Page 65 and 66: Courts in Hempstead and Syracuse al
Page 67 and 68: The details of our proposal are ref
Page 69 and 70: continue to handle such matters whi
Page 71 and 72: We recognize that some have express
Page 73 and 74: The diagram below outlines the stru
Page 75 and 76: Under a “merger in place” plan,
Page 77 and 78: Judicial District. By contrast, jud
Page 79 and 80: Today, the Housing Court, as this P
Page 81 and 82: The issues concerning the Justice C
Page 83 and 84:
five years. 158 Therefore, it is no
Page 85 and 86:
of preservation. The use of citatio
Page 87 and 88:
CURRENT STRUCTURE Court of Appeals
Page 89 and 90:
JSC status, thereby increasing the
Page 91 and 92:
significant authority over our stat
Page 93 and 94:
The Supposed Ease of an Administrat
Page 95 and 96:
Supreme Court Justices hear every y
Page 97 and 98:
a restructuring have already been c
Page 99:
the constitutional amendment is pas
show all

Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?