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

30.04.2014 Views

putes; it would also be organized on a countywide basis, with intra-county districts designated by the Legislature and judges elected districtwide to ten-year terms. 79 • The Magistrates’ Court would exercise jurisdiction over traffic and other low-level criminal cases; New York City magistrates would be appointed to ten-year terms by the Mayor, and magistrates elsewhere would be appointed to four-year terms by county boards of supervisors. 80 In 1957, the Tweed ong>Commissionong> modified this plan in response to significant political pressure. Although the resulting proposal left the central elements of the Tweed ong>Commissionong>’s plan largely intact, it contained the following significant changes: it provided for a new Family Court in New York City, and it largely exempted justices of the peace outside of New York City from the plan’s provisions. 81 A concurrent resolution memorializing the compromise was passed in the Senate in March 1957, but was not passed in the Assembly, 82 with the splitting of the Tenth District proving to be a particularly divisive issue. 83 In January 1958, the Tweed ong>Commissionong> released another revised plan that backed away from several of the proposals that had been set forth in the 1957 plan. This 1958 plan, which, in large part, would have affected only New York City, provided for the creation of a separate Family Court only in the city, retention of jurisdiction over divorce, annulment, and all matrimonial actions (including uncontested ones) in the Supreme Court, and no change to the rural justices of the peace, village police justices, and upstate city court judges. The 1958 plan also left up to the Legislature whether to split the Tenth District. However, like its predecessor, the plan still called for the merger of the Surrogate’s Court into the Supreme Court in New York City and County New York’s system “is directly contrary to the theory enunciated by Dean Roscoe Pound and accepted as almost axiomatic by those who are students and experts in the field of judicial administration.” – Tweed ong>Commissionong> (1955) 79 See id. at 5-6. 80 See id. at 6-7. 81 See Leo Egan, Court Bill Changed in Bid for Backers, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 21, 1957, at 1, 21. 82 See Leo Egan, Court Plan Dies as Legislature Ends Its Session, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 31, 1957, at 1. 83 See Albany Revolts Balk Court Bills, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 30, 1957, at 13. A Court System for the Future, February 2007 51

Court upstate as well as the transfer of budgetary and personnel control from individual courts to centralized administrators. In March 1958, the Tweed ong>Commissionong> sent a further modified version of its plan to the Legislature. 84 This final plan passed the Senate by a wide margin but again failed to secure support in the Assembly. 85 On March 31, 1958, the Tweed ong>Commissionong> – having not been renewed by the Legislature – was dissolved. 86 The Dominick ong>Commissionong> (1970-1973) Our court system’s “fragmented jurisdiction creates serious problems for litigants and the courts. It prevents a litigant from obtaining complete relief in one judicial forum and requires unnecessary duplication of court work.” – Dominick ong>Commissionong> (1973) In May 1970, the New York State Legislature established the Temporary State ong>Commissionong> to Study the Courts, and appointed Orange County State Senator D. Clinton Dominick as its chair. 87 The Dominick ong>Commissionong>, as it was known, consisted of twelve members appointed by the Governor and Legislative leadership, and included sitting legislators. 88 In its January 1973 final report, the Dominick ong>Commissionong> issued 180 recommendations covering five broad subject areas: (1) administering the court system, (2) financing the court system, (3) structuring the court system, (4) selecting and disciplining judges, and (5) releasing, detaining and indicting criminal defendants. 89 With respect to the structure of the state courts, the Dominick ong>Commissionong>’s most significant recommendation was the proposed merger of the Supreme Court, the Court of Claims, the County Court, the Surrogate’s Court, and the Family Court into a single Superior Court with general and original jurisdiction 84 These modifications, which were designed to ease the bill’s passage, provided that the Surrogate’s Court would not be subject to consolidation in any county with a population exceeding 350,000 people and added four Supreme Court justice seats to Queens County. 85 See Editorial, Court Reform Defeat, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 27, 1958, at 32. 86 See Text of Statement by Harrison Tweed on Court Plan Foes, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 4, 1958, at 13. 87 See TEMP. COMM’N ON THE STATE COURT SYS., . . . AND JUSTICE FOR ALL (PART 1) (1973) (listing commission members). 88 See id. 89 See id. at 5. 52 A Court System for the Future, February 2007

Court upstate as well as <strong>the</strong> transfer <strong>of</strong> budgetary and pers<strong>on</strong>nel<br />

c<strong>on</strong>trol from individual courts to centralized administrators.<br />

In March 1958, <strong>the</strong> Tweed <str<strong>on</strong>g>Commissi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> sent a fur<strong>the</strong>r<br />

modified versi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> its plan to <strong>the</strong> Legislature. 84 This final plan<br />

passed <strong>the</strong> Senate by a wide margin but again failed to secure<br />

support in <strong>the</strong> Assembly. 85 On March 31, 1958, <strong>the</strong> Tweed<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>Commissi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> – having not been renewed by <strong>the</strong> Legislature – was<br />

dissolved. 86<br />

The Dominick <str<strong>on</strong>g>Commissi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> (1970-1973)<br />

Our court system’s “fragmented<br />

jurisdicti<strong>on</strong> creates serious<br />

problems for litigants<br />

and <strong>the</strong> courts. It prevents a litigant<br />

from obtaining complete<br />

relief in <strong>on</strong>e judicial forum and<br />

requires unnecessary duplicati<strong>on</strong><br />

<strong>of</strong> court work.”<br />

– Dominick <str<strong>on</strong>g>Commissi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g><br />

(1973)<br />

In May 1970, <strong>the</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>York</strong> <strong>State</strong> Legislature established<br />

<strong>the</strong> Temporary <strong>State</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Commissi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> to Study <strong>the</strong> <strong>Courts</strong>, and<br />

appointed Orange County <strong>State</strong> Senator D. Clint<strong>on</strong> Dominick as<br />

its chair. 87 The Dominick <str<strong>on</strong>g>Commissi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g>, as it was known,<br />

c<strong>on</strong>sisted <strong>of</strong> twelve members appointed by <strong>the</strong> Governor and<br />

Legislative leadership, and included sitting legislators. 88<br />

In its January 1973 final report, <strong>the</strong> Dominick<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>Commissi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> issued 180 recommendati<strong>on</strong>s covering five broad<br />

subject areas: (1) administering <strong>the</strong> court system, (2) financing<br />

<strong>the</strong> court system, (3) structuring <strong>the</strong> court system, (4) selecting<br />

and disciplining judges, and (5) releasing, detaining and indicting<br />

criminal defendants. 89<br />

With respect to <strong>the</strong> structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state courts, <strong>the</strong><br />

Dominick <str<strong>on</strong>g>Commissi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g>’s most significant recommendati<strong>on</strong> was<br />

<strong>the</strong> proposed merger <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court, <strong>the</strong> Court <strong>of</strong> Claims,<br />

<strong>the</strong> County Court, <strong>the</strong> Surrogate’s Court, and <strong>the</strong> Family Court<br />

into a single Superior Court with general and original jurisdicti<strong>on</strong><br />

84<br />

These modificati<strong>on</strong>s, which were designed to ease <strong>the</strong> bill’s passage,<br />

provided that <strong>the</strong> Surrogate’s Court would not be subject to c<strong>on</strong>solidati<strong>on</strong> in any<br />

county with a populati<strong>on</strong> exceeding 350,000 people and added four Supreme Court<br />

justice seats to Queens County.<br />

85<br />

See Editorial, Court Reform Defeat, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 27, 1958, at 32.<br />

86<br />

See Text <strong>of</strong> <strong>State</strong>ment by Harris<strong>on</strong> Tweed <strong>on</strong> Court Plan Foes, N.Y.<br />

TIMES, Apr. 4, 1958, at 13.<br />

87<br />

See TEMP. COMM’N ON THE STATE COURT SYS., . . . AND JUSTICE FOR<br />

ALL (PART 1) (1973) (listing commissi<strong>on</strong> members).<br />

88<br />

See id.<br />

89<br />

See id. at 5.<br />

52<br />

A Court System for <strong>the</strong> <strong>Future</strong>, February 2007

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!