Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts

More documents

Recommendations

Info

heard in the Supreme Court. If there are nonmatrimonial proceedings relating to child custody, support, or visitation, those proceedings must be heard in Family Court. And if there are any housing-related issues, those must be heard in a court with jurisdiction over housing matters. The economic analysis we have conducted (an analysis that has been independently verified by the National Center for State Courts (see Appendix iv)), addresses both of these inefficiencies by quantifying (a) the amount of time that could be saved per case, on a systemwide basis, if our recommended, more flexible structure were in place and certain jurisdictional barriers were eliminated; and (b), separately, the amount of time that could be saved per case in the universe of cases where the subject matter requires appearances to be made in more than one court at the same time. Based upon the amount of time to be saved, the analysis then calculates the monetary savings that could be realized in a variety of ways, by a number of constituencies. These include savings to: • individuals who could avoid lost wages, travel costs and attorneys’ fees by avoiding unnecessary trips to court; • employers who would otherwise lose productivity when their employees leave for unneeded court appearances; • municipalities that must bear the cost of courtappointed attorneys in criminal, Family Court and other matters; and • large and small businesses that could avoid unnecessary attorneys’ fees. “The consolidation of the courts into a two-tiered structure . . . would eliminate the need for litigants to appeal to multiple judges, speed the resolution of disputes, reduce costs associated with litigation, insure greater consistency and equity in judicial decisions, and lead to an overall improvement of case management.” – Citizens Union of the City of New York, January 2007 Our analysis concludes that such savings will amount to $443 million annually, or more than $4.4 billion over the next ten years. As noted in our analysis, our assumptions are conservative, 71 and there are additional categories of economic savings that we have not attempted to quantify. (For example, we have not attempted to estimate the savings to witnesses (including the reduction in overtime paid to police officers who 71 It should be noted that the number of cases at issue is so huge (3.7 million cases resolved per year) that even very conservative assumptions about the availability of efficiency-based savings will produce a savings that is substantial from the point of view of the state’s economy. A Court System for the Future, February 2007 47
appear as witnesses), or to family members who accompany litigants to court.) This type of economic analysis has, to our knowledge, not been previously conducted in the context of a court restructuring proposal, and we submit that these conclusions cast a more dramatic light on prior debates about the topic. In short, we believe that, given the magnitude of the costs involved and the impact on statewide productivity, it would be irresponsible at this point to ignore the need to change the status quo. Savings to the OCA Budget “The current compartmentalized system needlessly handcuffs court administrators by prohibiting them from drawing upon the full complement of resources at their disposal.” – Association of Judges of the Family Court of the State of New York, January 2007 A consolidation of the courts would also result in a significant savings in OCA’s annual budget. In a February 2002 study, OCA calculated that the state would save $131 million over five years if the court merger proposal then under discussion were enacted. 72 We have conducted an updated analysis and project that the savings to the state would be more substantial, amounting to $59 million per year once court merger is fully implemented, for a five-year total of $295 million. As further detailed in Appendix ii, these projected budgetary savings would be realized from reduced case processing costs as a result of the unified treatment of related cases, and reduced administrative costs needed to manage a simplified administrative structure. The 2002 projections have also been updated to account for the effect of inflation over the past five years, and include an updated tally of the universe of related cases that would be treated together under a merged system. The analysis of the savings to OCA’s budget further illustrates the staggering amount that will be saved under a restructured court system. Added together, the $59 million in annual savings to the state and the $443 million in annual savings to litigants and businesses described above will result in a total savings of $502 million per year. 72 See N.Y. UNIFIED COURT. SYS., THE BUDGETARY IMPACT OF TRIAL COURT RESTRUCTURING 3 (2002). 48 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 and 44: husband told the judge that I was a
Page 45: Costs to Individuals, Businesses, M
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?