Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts

More documents

Recommendations

Info

— SECTION THREE — THE FINANCIAL COST OF OUR CURRENT STRUCTURE: HALF A BILLION DOLLARS WASTED EACH YEAR From a fiscal point of view, New York’s court structure is profoundly inefficient. At bottom, the system has too many courts with limited jurisdiction. These limited jurisdiction courts (and the judges who sit in them) cannot hear cases that fall outside their narrow jurisdictional boundaries, making it impossible to manage cases and caseloads in a rational, systemwide manner. As a result, the current system is unduly costly to administer and requires litigants to waste time and money on court dates and tasks that could be avoided in a simpler system. We have conducted a detailed economic analysis of the costs of our current structure and the substantial savings that would result if the court system were simplified. As set forth more fully in the analysis that appears in Appendix ii, we estimate that approximately $502 million in annual savings would be realized if court reform is achieved. Of this total, $443 million in annual savings would be realized by individual litigants, business litigants, employers, municipalities and others. In addition, we estimate that a further $59 million would be saved in the court system’s annual budget. New York’s court system is “widely recognized as the most convoluted, expensive and ridiculous in the country.” – Why Albany Doesn’t Mend the Courts, New York Times, February 21, 2003 Notably, this analysis does more than simply quantify the amount and value of litigant time that the current court structure wastes. It also highlights lost economic productivity to New York businesses and the New York economy. In other words, the costs at issue create a worrisome drag on New York’s economic potential. As the analysis indicates, the trial court consolidation that we have proposed will stop this wasteful drain on our state’s economy and will result in savings amounting to half a billion dollars annually for our state’s people and businesses. What follows is a synopsis of the analysis presented in Appendix ii. A Court System for the Future, February 2007 45
Costs to Individuals, Businesses, Municipalities and Others “The current structure . . . fails to take full advantage of the capabilities of the judiciary and makes needless and costly demands on attorneys and their clients’ time.” – Atlantic Legal Foundation, March 2005 The current structure wastes time and money in two fundamental ways. First, in the current system (with its overabundance of courts with limited jurisdiction), it is generally not possible to reallocate cases from overburdened courts to those with excess capacity. For this reason, enormous docket disparities cannot be remedied, and cases on the dockets of overburdened courts receive less judicial attention than they would if the system allowed for the reallocation of cases. (See Figure 1 below.) For these languishing cases, less judicial attention means less opportunity for judicial case management and less probability of early dispute resolution. Figure 1: Selected Caseloads (2005) Court Sitting Judges (full-time equivalents) 68 Dispositions Dispositions per Judge Supreme Court (civil cases) 376 197,214 525 Supreme Court and County Court (felony cases) 241 53,577 222 Court of Claims 27 1,703 63 Family Court 277 69 587,181 70 2,120 Surrogate’s Court 50 113,753 2,275 Data provided by OCA Second, the current system limits the ability of a single judge to take jurisdiction over all claims arising from a given event or transaction. For example, a variety of different legal claims typically attend criminal allegations of domestic violence. Under the current system, these claims generally must be adjudicated in separate courts. The criminal action must be heard in a court with jurisdiction over criminal proceedings. If there is a matrimonial action to dissolve the marriage, that action must be 68 The number of sitting judges is expressed in terms of full-time equivalents to reflect that (1) some Justices in the Supreme Court hear both criminal and civil cases, (2) some County Court judges also serve in the Surrogate’s Court, the Family Court or both, and (3) some judges handle supervisory and administrative tasks in addition to hearing cases. 69 Includes 125 support magistrates. 70 Includes matters heard by judges and support magistrates; excludes matters handled by attorney referees and judicial hearing officers. 46 A Court System for the Future, February 2007
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 and 32: jurisdiction would become Superior
Page 33 and 34: In short, when it comes to the stru
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: husband told the judge that I was a
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?