Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The 1986 Proposals On July 6, 1985, a plan to restructure the New York courts was announced by John R. Dunne, then Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Warren M. Anderson, then Senate Majority Leader. 103 The major elements of this 1985 Senate plan were as follows: (1) merger of the Court of Claims, County Court, Surrogate’s Court, Family Court, District Courts, and New York City Criminal and Civil Courts into a single Supreme Court; (2) creation of a Surrogate’s Division of the Supreme Court for counties with more than 200,000 people; and (3) creation of a Fifth Judicial Department composed of the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts. 104 Public hearings on the 1985 Senate plan were held in the fall of 1985, and opposition to certain aspects of the plan was voiced. In particular, the Association of the Justices of the Supreme Court opposed the reform proposals. 105 On July 3, 1986 (the last day of the 1986 legislative session), the Assembly and Senate approved a court reorganization plan (the “Unified Court System Proposal”) that closely followed the 1985 Senate plan. 106 Despite securing first passage in 1986, however, the Unified Court System Proposal never reached the voters of New York for ratification. It failed to pass the Legislature again when, as required by the Constitution for any amendment, it was resubmitted for a second vote in 1987. 107 The 1997 Proposals The most significant restructuring initiative in recent years was launched on March 19, 1997, when Chief Judge Judith Kaye and Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman 103 See Press Release, State Senator John R. Dunne, Senate Court Reorganization Plan Announced (July 8, 1985). 104 See id. at 1-2. 105 See Editorial, Puffed-Up Judges vs. Court Reform, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 23, 1985, at A22. 106 See Summary of the Major Actions Taken by the New York Legislature in 1986, N.Y. TIMES, July 10, 1986, at B4. 107 See Frank Lynn, Court Merger Seen as Dead in Legislature, N.Y. TIMES, June 8, 1987, at B1. A Court System for the Future, February 2007 55
proposed a concurrent resolution to amend Article VI of the New York Constitution (the “1997 Proposals”) for the purpose of restructuring and simplifying the New York trial courts. 108 The 1997 Proposals contained the following key elements: • A reconfiguration of the state’s major trial courts into a two-tiered structure, consisting of a Supreme Court and a statewide system of District Courts with limited jurisdiction. • The reconfigured Supreme Court would have at least five divisions – family, commercial, probate, state claims and criminal – and more divisions could be established by the Chief Administrative Judge. The Supreme Court would have general jurisdiction over all civil, criminal and family matters. • The District Court would have jurisdiction over misdemeanor criminal cases, housing cases, and civil cases involving claims of $50,000 or less. • The creation of a Fifth Judicial Department to relieve the caseload burden on the state’s appellate court system. • The elimination of the limitation on legislative authority to increase the number of Supreme Court Justices. • No changes would be made to the process of judicial selection. Under a “merger in place” plan, all judges currently serving in courts merged into the Supreme Court would be elevated to Justices of the Supreme Court for the remainder of their terms, and they and their successors in office would continue subject to the same selection process as applied to their offices prior to merger. Likewise, judges in courts merged into the District Court would become District Court judges (with the selection process for these judgeships preserved). On April 7, 1997, the proposals were introduced in a concurrent resolution in the New York State Senate. 109 In September 1997, the State Assembly Judiciary Committee announced an alternative set of proposals calling for a more 108 See Press Release, New York State Unified Court System, Proposal to Reform New York State Court System Submitted to Legislature (Mar. 19, 1997). 109 See S. Con. Res. 4226 (as introduced on Apr. 7, 1997). 56 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 and 52: Court upstate as well as the transf
Page 53: y the Legislature and were approved
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?