Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts
Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts
— 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
Costs to Individuals, Businesses, Municipalities<br />
and O<strong>the</strong>rs<br />
“The current structure . . . fails<br />
to take full advantage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
capabilities <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> judiciary<br />
and makes needless and costly<br />
demands <strong>on</strong> attorneys and<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir clients’ time.”<br />
– Atlantic Legal Foundati<strong>on</strong>,<br />
March 2005<br />
The current structure wastes time and m<strong>on</strong>ey in two<br />
fundamental ways.<br />
First, in <strong>the</strong> current system (with its overabundance <strong>of</strong><br />
courts with limited jurisdicti<strong>on</strong>), it is generally not possible to<br />
reallocate cases from overburdened courts to those with excess<br />
capacity. For this reas<strong>on</strong>, enormous docket disparities cannot be<br />
remedied, and cases <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> dockets <strong>of</strong> overburdened courts<br />
receive less judicial attenti<strong>on</strong> than <strong>the</strong>y would if <strong>the</strong> system<br />
allowed for <strong>the</strong> reallocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> cases. (See Figure 1 below.) For<br />
<strong>the</strong>se languishing cases, less judicial attenti<strong>on</strong> means less<br />
opportunity for judicial case management and less probability <strong>of</strong><br />
early dispute resoluti<strong>on</strong>.<br />
Figure 1: Selected Caseloads (2005)<br />
Court<br />
Sitting Judges<br />
(full-time equivalents) 68 Dispositi<strong>on</strong>s Dispositi<strong>on</strong>s per Judge<br />
Supreme Court (civil cases) 376 197,214 525<br />
Supreme Court and County<br />
Court (fel<strong>on</strong>y cases)<br />
241 53,577 222<br />
Court <strong>of</strong> Claims 27 1,703 63<br />
Family Court 277 69 587,181 70 2,120<br />
Surrogate’s Court 50 113,753 2,275<br />
Data provided by OCA<br />
Sec<strong>on</strong>d, <strong>the</strong> current system limits <strong>the</strong> ability <strong>of</strong> a single<br />
judge to take jurisdicti<strong>on</strong> over all claims arising from a given<br />
event or transacti<strong>on</strong>. For example, a variety <strong>of</strong> different legal<br />
claims typically attend criminal allegati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> domestic violence.<br />
Under <strong>the</strong> current system, <strong>the</strong>se claims generally must be<br />
adjudicated in separate courts. The criminal acti<strong>on</strong> must be heard<br />
in a court with jurisdicti<strong>on</strong> over criminal proceedings. If <strong>the</strong>re is<br />
a matrim<strong>on</strong>ial acti<strong>on</strong> to dissolve <strong>the</strong> marriage, that acti<strong>on</strong> must be<br />
68<br />
The number <strong>of</strong> sitting judges is expressed in terms <strong>of</strong> full-time equivalents<br />
to reflect that (1) some Justices in <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court hear both criminal and<br />
civil cases, (2) some County Court judges also serve in <strong>the</strong> Surrogate’s Court, <strong>the</strong><br />
Family Court or both, and (3) some judges handle supervisory and administrative<br />
tasks in additi<strong>on</strong> to hearing cases.<br />
69<br />
Includes 125 support magistrates.<br />
70<br />
Includes matters heard by judges and support magistrates; excludes<br />
matters handled by attorney referees and judicial hearing <strong>of</strong>ficers.<br />
46<br />
A Court System for <strong>the</strong> <strong>Future</strong>, February 2007
Change language