Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts

The details of our proposal are reflected in this section
and also in the draft constitutional amendment we have appended
to this Report. This amendment contains all of the tools needed
for the Legislature to begin to implement our proposals
immediately.
The Supreme Court
“New York’s present system is
a nightmare of jurisdictions.”
– Don’t Imperil Court Reform,
Albany Times
Union, May 19, 1998
Court Merger. The most significant component of our
restructuring proposal is the merger of New York’s major trial
courts into a consolidated Supreme Court. 142 Under our plan, the
County Court, Family Court, Court of Claims and Surrogate’s
Court would all be abolished and their judges merged into the
Supreme Court. This newly expanded Supreme Court would
have general jurisdiction to hear any kind of case, including all
family cases and cases that include claims against the state.
Judges. The judges merged into the Supreme Court
would become full-fledged Justices of the Supreme Court with
the same jurisdiction and authority as existing Supreme Court
Justices. Judges of the New York City Civil and Criminal Courts
who are serving as Acting Supreme Court Justices would also be
added to the newly merged Supreme Court as full Supreme Court
Justices. 143
<strong>Special</strong>ized Divisions. While the new Supreme Court
would be a court of general jurisdiction, it would also have within
it several specialized Divisions. For the present, these Divisions
would include a Criminal Division for felony criminal
142
Although nearly all other states and our federal government refer to
their courts of last resort as “Supreme Courts,” New York State refers to its trial
court of general jurisdiction as the “Supreme Court,” while the state’s highest
court is called the “Court of Appeals.” Past commentators have proposed that another
designation, such as “Superior Court,” be used to refer to New York State’s
trial court, and the redesignation of our Court of Appeals as the Supreme Court,
to avoid the obvious confusion that our unusual nomenclature can create. Others,
however, have suggested that a change itself would cause unnecessary confusion,
and might diminish the respect that the Supreme Court has long enjoyed as the preeminent
trial court within the state. In our view, a name change is not critical to
the success of court restructuring, and we thus make no recommendations on this
potentially divisive issue.
143
The future of the Acting Supreme Court Justice position, and the
method of selection for Justices of the new Supreme Court, is more fully addressed
later in this section where the “merger in place” concept is discussed.
68
A Court System for the Future, February 2007