Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Our proposal calls for the lifting of the constitutional cap on the number of Justices of the Supreme Court, in addition to increased administrative flexibility so that resources within the newly expanded Supreme Court can be allocated more efficiently. As such, the restructured system will no longer require Acting JSCs, and the temporary-designation power should be a thing of the past. As for judges currently serving as Acting JSCs, some have suggested that, once the new system is in place, these judges should be returned to the courts to which they were originally elected or appointed. We recognize, however, that many Acting JSCs have served for years with distinction in the Supreme Court, and we would not wish to lose their expertise and experience by having those judges return to other courts. Accordingly, our plan calls for judges who are currently serving as Acting JSCs to remain in the Supreme Court – where they have served and are needed – as full-fledged Supreme Court Justices. After their terms expire, these judges would be subject to the same selection process as would apply if they were still serving as Acting JSCs. 154 We believe this strikes an appropriate balance between preserving the expertise of an experienced pool of judges while making no changes to the system for how these judges are selected, except that the court administration’s role in designating them to the Supreme Court would be eliminated. NYC Housing Court: A <strong>Special</strong> Case. The New York City Housing Court presents a unique issue and requires a somewhat different analysis from the other courts being merged into the new District Court. In 1972, the State Legislature enacted a statute creating the Housing Part of the New York City Civil Court, with jurisdiction over summary proceedings and the enforcement of building codes and other laws prescribing housing standards. It also provided for the use of quasi-judicial hearing officers to preside in the Housing Part in lieu of Civil Court Judges. 154 In other words, those who came from elected posts on the New York City Civil Court would now be subject to the same election, but for a Supreme Court seat. New York City Criminal Court and Court of Claims appointees would be subject to appointment by the Mayor of New York City and the Governor, respectively. A Court System for the Future, February 2007 79
Today, the Housing Court, as this Part is known, is comprised of approximately fifty such hearing officers (now called Housing Judges), who preside over all residential landlord and tenant cases in New York City. These judges are appointed by the Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York from an annual list compiled by the Advisory Council, a fourteen member panel comprised of representatives from the real estate industry, tenants’ organizations, civic and bar groups, a mayoral appointee and members of the public. Recognizing the importance of the Housing Court and the fact that its hearing officers already function as constitutional judges in every sense of the word, our plan calls for the Housing Court and its judges to be accorded constitutional status. The Housing Court would remain a distinct branch within the larger District Court, so that its present function as an accessible, user-friendly court for residential landlord and tenant issues is preserved. We do, however, call for a change to the way Housing Court judges are selected. While, in our view, the Chief Administrative Judge and the Advisory Council have done an exemplary job of working in tandem to select the most qualified and appropriate judges for the Housing Court to date, we believe that under a restructured system, the role of OCA is better suited to the administration of the courts and that the process of selecting judges should be left to others. Our proposal therefore calls for the retention of the Advisory Council but for the Mayor of New York City to select New York City’s Housing Court judges. We have considered whether to recommend the election of Housing Court judges and believe this to be inadvisable. Unlike other aspects of the judicial selection issue, there is a consensus that providing for the election of Housing Court judges would be a mistake given the potential influence that could be brought to bear in the funding of such elections. While others examining the broader question of judicial selection may arrive at a different view, we believe that the Advisory Council should continue to screen and recommend candidates for the Housing Court, and that the Mayor of New York City should select judges from this pool. 80 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 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: Judicial District. By contrast, jud
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?