Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts

More documents

Recommendations

Info

over all criminal and civil matters. 90 A second significant recommendation was the creation of a Fifth Judicial Department that would consist of the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts. 91 However, neither of these recommendations was ever considered by the Legislature. 92 The Vance <strong>Commission</strong> (1974 – 1976) Shortly after he was elected governor in 1974, Hugh Carey appointed a Task Force on Judicial Selection and Court Reform, chaired by Cyrus Vance. 93 In a memorandum and proposed constitutional amendment, the “Vance <strong>Commission</strong>,” as it was known, called for changes in (1) the method of selecting judges, (2) the number of trial courts in the state, (3) judicial discipline, (4) court administration, and (5) court financing. 94 With respect to the New York State trial courts, the Vance <strong>Commission</strong> called for the merger of the following courts into the Supreme Court: the New York City Civil and Criminal Courts, the Court of Claims, the Family Court, the County Court, and the Surrogate’s Court. 95 In 1976, the Legislature gave first passage of an amendment to Article VI of the New York State Constitution to provide for the following: (1) gubernatorial appointment of judges to the Court of Appeals, (2) centralization of court administration under the authority of the Chief Judge and Chief Administrative Judge, and (3) abolition of the Court on the Judiciary. 96 In 1977, these proposals were given second passage “Expensive and time-consuming disputes over the jurisdiction of the various courts, and the constant shuttling of one case between various courts, will . . . be eliminated by the proposed merger.” – Cyrus Vance, Memorandum to Gov. Carey (1976) 90 See TEMP. COMM’N ON THE STATE COURT SYS., . . . AND JUSTICE FOR ALL (PART 2) (1973). 91 See id. at 41. 92 See Summary of Actions Taken in the 1973 Legislative Session, N.Y. TIMES, May 30, 1973, at 22. 93 See Press Release, Governor Hugh L. Carey, <strong>Special</strong> Message to the Legislature (May 3, 1976). 94 See Cyrus Vance, Chair of the Task Force on Court Reform, Memorandum to Governor Hugh Carey 3-4 (Mar. 30, 1976). 95 See id. at 3-4. 96 See Amendment Victory Spurs Court Change, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 10, 1977, at D16. A Court System for the Future, February 2007 53
y the Legislature and were approved by New York’s voters. 97 However, these amendments had no effect on the structure of New York’s courts. 98 New York State Bar Association Report (1979) “[T]here are substantial additional benefits to be derived from the merger of the major trial courts, particularly through the elimination of fragmented and overlapping jurisdiction and their resultant waste and confusion.” – Action Unit No. 4 of the State Bar Association (1979) On June 21, 1978, the House of Delegates of the New York State Bar Association (“NYSBA”) directed NYSBA’s president to appoint a group to study reorganization of the New York State courts. 99 As a consequence, on September 29, 1979, the NYSBA House of Delegates adopted two principal recommendations: (1) merger of the County Court, Family Court, Court of Claims, Surrogate’s Court, and Civil and Criminal Courts of New York City into the Supreme Court; and (2) establishment of a separate Surrogate’s Division of the Supreme Court. 100 These recommendations followed an April 2, 1979 proposal by Governor Carey in his State of the State message that provided for merger of the following courts into the Supreme Court: the Court of Claims, the County Court, the Family Court, the Surrogate’s Court, and the Civil and Criminal Courts of the City of New York. 101 These efforts notwithstanding, the Legislature failed to take any action on the court restructuring proposals put forward by Governor Carey. 102 97 See id. at A1, D16. 98 See id. at D16. 99 See N.Y. STATE BAR ASS’N, REPORT OF ACTION UNIT NO. 4 (COURT RE- ORGANIZATION) TO THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES ON TRIAL COURT MERGER AND JUDI- CIAL SELECTION 1 (1979). 100 See Resolution of the New York State Bar Association House of Delegates (Sept. 29, 1979). 101 See N.Y. STATE BAR ASS’N, supra note 99 at 26. 102 See Frank Lynn, Court System Changes Sought by Carey Face Bipartisan Opposition, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 9, 1979, at A1; A Summary of the Actions Taken This Year by the New York State Legislature, N.Y. TIMES, June 21, 1979, at B6. 54 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 and 46: Costs to Individuals, Businesses, M
Page 47 and 48: appear as witnesses), or to family
Page 49 and 50: The Tweed Commission</stron
Page 51: Court upstate as well as the transf
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

Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?