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

Business organizations, in particular, have decried the time and resources that are wasted each year by the current system’s inefficient and outdated structure. As these groups have noted, the present system not only forces litigants into multiple courts to resolve closely related matters, but it also prohibits efficient management techniques, leaving court administrators powerless to redistribute cases from overburdened to underutilized courts. The result is an unwieldy, complex system, inhospitable to business and economic growth. As the Partnership for New York City, one of our state’s leading business organizations, recently observed, “New York State has the nation’s most inefficient and expensive trial court system.” As noted in Section Two, above, the Partnership and several of our state’s most prominent business organizations have formed a “Business Coalition for Court Efficiency,” and issued a statement indicating strong support for “efforts to secure amendment of the New York State Constitution to create a twotier court system that will greatly improve the administration of justice and result in significant savings of time and costs to litigants and business.” 115 A restructuring “would make the courts less complex and less frustrating for litigants, lawyers, judges and court officers. That’s why they are supported by virtually every major legal organization, civic group and newspaper in this state.” – Stop Dawdling on Court Reform, Daily News, June 14, 1998 Good-government groups, likewise, have been united in their criticism of the current system. These groups have similarly called for reforms to remedy the courts’ inconsistencies, focusing in particular on the costs to the state of the current system. For example, Citizens Union has stated that the “consolidation of the courts into a more efficient and citizen friendly system for New York is long overdue,” and has endorsed the merger ofNew York’s antiquated and convoluted court structure . . . into a two-tier structure.” 116 Likewise, the League of Women Voters of New York State has stated that the current “archaic” system “needlessly wastes the time and resources of litigants, businesses, municipalities, and courts.” 117 115 See Appendix iii. The business groups in the coalition include: Partnership for New York City, Metropolitan Development Association of Central New York, the Business Council of New York State, Long Island Association, and the Westchester County Association (which has also submitted its own letter of support). 116 See id. 117 See id. A Court System for the Future, February 2007 59

Groups representing the indigent also uniformly support restructuring. Significant to these groups, naturally, are the deleterious effects the current system has on members of the low-income community, who can least afford the increased costs imposed by the current system. As Legal Services of New York has stated, the congestion and confusion caused by the current court system “particularly affects the lives of poor people in New York City . . . . Unable to defend themselves adequately, and often missing rescheduled court dates due to lack of child care options or rigid work schedules, poor people lose their homes, medical care, public benefits and families.” 118 Finally, a broad cross-section of legal groups – including statewide bar associations, judges’ groups, and local lawyers’ associations – stand firmly behind restructuring. In their view, the current court system demeans the quality of justice courts are currently able to provide. Indeed, the New York State Bar Association and the Association of the Bar for the City of New York have for decades supported court restructuring. 119 The Atlantic Legal Foundation has also supported court restructuring for years and has stated that “[t]he current system cannot be defended. It is inefficient, costly to litigants and generally not conducive to the swift administration of justice.” 120 These organizations and others have – in addition to historically supporting court reform – specifically endorsed the proposals that we make in this Report. Their statements of support are included in Appendix iii. 121 118 See id. 119 See id. 120 See id. 121 The complete list of organizations that have submitted letters of support is as follows: Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Atlantic Legal Foundation, the Business Council of New York State, Center for Law and Justice, Citizen’s Union of the City of New York, the Fund for Modern Courts, League of Women Voters of New York State, Legal Services for New York, Long Island Association, Metropolitan Development Association of Central New York, New York County Lawyers’Association, New York State Association of City Court Judges, New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, New York State Association of Family Court Judges, New York State Bar Association, Partnership for New York City, and the Westchester County Association. 60 A Court System for the Future, February 2007

Business organizati<strong>on</strong>s, in particular, have decried <strong>the</strong><br />

time and resources that are wasted each year by <strong>the</strong> current<br />

system’s inefficient and outdated structure. As <strong>the</strong>se groups have<br />

noted, <strong>the</strong> present system not <strong>on</strong>ly forces litigants into multiple<br />

courts to resolve closely related matters, but it also prohibits<br />

efficient management techniques, leaving court administrators<br />

powerless to redistribute cases from overburdened to<br />

underutilized courts. The result is an unwieldy, complex system,<br />

inhospitable to business and ec<strong>on</strong>omic growth.<br />

As <strong>the</strong> Partnership for <strong>New</strong> <strong>York</strong> City, <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> our state’s<br />

leading business organizati<strong>on</strong>s, recently observed, “<strong>New</strong> <strong>York</strong><br />

<strong>State</strong> has <strong>the</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>’s most inefficient and expensive trial court<br />

system.” As noted in Secti<strong>on</strong> Two, above, <strong>the</strong> Partnership and<br />

several <strong>of</strong> our state’s most prominent business organizati<strong>on</strong>s have<br />

formed a “Business Coaliti<strong>on</strong> for Court Efficiency,” and issued<br />

a statement indicating str<strong>on</strong>g support for “efforts to secure<br />

amendment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>York</strong> <strong>State</strong> C<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong> to create a twotier<br />

court system that will greatly improve <strong>the</strong> administrati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

justice and result in significant savings <strong>of</strong> time and costs to<br />

litigants and business.” 115<br />

A restructuring “would make<br />

<strong>the</strong> courts less complex and<br />

less frustrating for litigants,<br />

lawyers, judges and court <strong>of</strong>ficers.<br />

That’s why <strong>the</strong>y are supported<br />

by virtually every major<br />

legal organizati<strong>on</strong>, civic group<br />

and newspaper in this state.”<br />

– Stop Dawdling <strong>on</strong><br />

Court Reform, Daily<br />

<strong>New</strong>s, June 14, 1998<br />

Good-government groups, likewise, have been united in<br />

<strong>the</strong>ir criticism <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> current system. These groups have similarly<br />

called for reforms to remedy <strong>the</strong> courts’ inc<strong>on</strong>sistencies, focusing<br />

in particular <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> costs to <strong>the</strong> state <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> current system. For<br />

example, Citizens Uni<strong>on</strong> has stated that <strong>the</strong> “c<strong>on</strong>solidati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> courts into a more efficient and citizen friendly system for<br />

<strong>New</strong> <strong>York</strong> is l<strong>on</strong>g overdue,” and has endorsed <strong>the</strong> merger <strong>of</strong><br />

“<strong>New</strong> <strong>York</strong>’s antiquated and c<strong>on</strong>voluted court structure . . . into<br />

a two-tier structure.” 116 Likewise, <strong>the</strong> League <strong>of</strong> Women Voters<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>York</strong> <strong>State</strong> has stated that <strong>the</strong> current “archaic” system<br />

“needlessly wastes <strong>the</strong> time and resources <strong>of</strong> litigants,<br />

businesses, municipalities, and courts.” 117<br />

115<br />

See Appendix iii. The business groups in <strong>the</strong> coaliti<strong>on</strong> include:<br />

Partnership for <strong>New</strong> <strong>York</strong> City, Metropolitan Development Associati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Central<br />

<strong>New</strong> <strong>York</strong>, <strong>the</strong> Business Council <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>York</strong> <strong>State</strong>, L<strong>on</strong>g Island Associati<strong>on</strong>, and<br />

<strong>the</strong> Westchester County Associati<strong>on</strong> (which has also submitted its own letter <strong>of</strong><br />

support).<br />

116<br />

See id.<br />

117<br />

See id.<br />

A Court System for <strong>the</strong> <strong>Future</strong>, February 2007 59

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!