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
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
Court upstate as well as the transfer of budgetary and personnel control from individual courts to centralized administrators. In March 1958, the Tweed
- 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 and 46: Costs to Individuals, Businesses, M
- Page 47 and 48: appear as witnesses), or to family
- Page 49: The Tweed Commission</stron
- 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
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