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
— SECTION SEVEN — OUR RESPONSES TO PAST CONCERNS Over the past fifty years, the calls for court reform have been remarkably consistent, urging a consolidation of the major trial courts and the expansion of the Appellate Division. During this time, the concerns that have been raised about court reform have likewise been consistent. As set forth below, we believe that the concerns about court reform that have been raised in the past are far outweighed by the benefits to be achieved through a restructuring. Concerns About the Arbitrary Reassignment of Judges In 1999, the Association of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the “Association”) suggested that court merger would provide OCA with “excessive power” to assign JSCs to specialized divisions in which they have no prior experience nor desire to work. 163 Opponents have further expressed the concern that court merger will allow OCA to transfer judges from the courts in which they currently sit to courts in other parts of the state, distant from their homes and the constituents who elected them. Some have gone even further and suggested that OCA would exercise this power to retaliate against justices who render unpopular decisions, thus undermining the independence of the judiciary. “Presently, the number of tiers and the multiplicity of different courts at each level have placed unnecessary obstacles before those seeking and those providing justice.” – Dominick
JSC status, thereby increasing the pool of JSCs and the overall efficiency of the system, the need to transfer justices from one part of the state to another should, if anything, be diminished. Moreover, we believe there is no basis for the concern that new JSCs will be arbitrarily assigned to areas in which they have no expertise. To the contrary, when assigning new JSCs to newly created Supreme Court parts, every effort should be made to employ the experience of particular judges. For example, current Family Court judges would become Supreme Court Justices, but should be concentrated in the Family Division of the new Supreme Court with jurisdiction over all family-related proceedings. The same would be true of Surrogate’s Court judges with respect to the Probate Division of the Supreme Court. We note, however, that even under the current system it is commonplace for judges to preside over a wide variety of cases over the course of a career – judges regularly move from civil to criminal, from misdemeanors to felonies, and from family to commercial matters. While a restructured system would preserve the expertise of judges in particular disciplines, we also expect that a new system would be flexible and permit the reassignment of judges – not arbitrarily, but where changes make sense for the courts, judges and litigants alike. More fundamentally, we believe that court administrators have acted in good faith to this point and would continue to do so. In studying the now thirty-year history of OCA, we have found that even its most vocal critics have not accused court administrators of reassigning judges in bad faith. Moreover, we believe that court restructuring would create a system that will run more efficiently and be easier to administer. In other words, court reform should allow OCA to function more efficiently and with the same degree of good faith as it has in the past. We note that a number of past proposals have included a grandfathering provision to prevent arbitrary reassignment of existing Supreme Court Justices – both geographically and as between specialized divisions. Alternatively, others have proposed a mechanism through which judges could appeal their reassignments by OCA. While we do not believe it necessary to provide for such mechanisms, we recognize that these options 90 A Court System for the Future, February 2007
- 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 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: CURRENT STRUCTURE Court of Appeals
- 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
— SECTION SEVEN —<br />
OUR RESPONSES TO PAST CONCERNS<br />
Over <strong>the</strong> past fifty years, <strong>the</strong> calls for court reform have<br />
been remarkably c<strong>on</strong>sistent, urging a c<strong>on</strong>solidati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> major<br />
trial courts and <strong>the</strong> expansi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Appellate Divisi<strong>on</strong>. During<br />
this time, <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns that have been raised about court reform<br />
have likewise been c<strong>on</strong>sistent. As set forth below, we believe<br />
that <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerns about court reform that have been raised in <strong>the</strong><br />
past are far outweighed by <strong>the</strong> benefits to be achieved through a<br />
restructuring.<br />
C<strong>on</strong>cerns About <strong>the</strong> Arbitrary Reassignment <strong>of</strong><br />
Judges<br />
In 1999, <strong>the</strong> Associati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Justices <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Supreme<br />
Court <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>State</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>York</strong> (<strong>the</strong> “Associati<strong>on</strong>”) suggested<br />
that court merger would provide OCA with “excessive power”<br />
to assign JSCs to specialized divisi<strong>on</strong>s in which <strong>the</strong>y have no<br />
prior experience nor desire to work. 163 Opp<strong>on</strong>ents have fur<strong>the</strong>r<br />
expressed <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cern that court merger will allow OCA to<br />
transfer judges from <strong>the</strong> courts in which <strong>the</strong>y currently sit to<br />
courts in o<strong>the</strong>r parts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state, distant from <strong>the</strong>ir homes and <strong>the</strong><br />
c<strong>on</strong>stituents who elected <strong>the</strong>m. Some have g<strong>on</strong>e even fur<strong>the</strong>r and<br />
suggested that OCA would exercise this power to retaliate against<br />
justices who render unpopular decisi<strong>on</strong>s, thus undermining <strong>the</strong><br />
independence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> judiciary.<br />
“Presently, <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> tiers<br />
and <strong>the</strong> multiplicity <strong>of</strong> different<br />
courts at each level have<br />
placed unnecessary obstacles<br />
before those seeking and those<br />
providing justice.”<br />
– Dominick <str<strong>on</strong>g>Commissi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
(1973)<br />
While we understand <strong>the</strong>se c<strong>on</strong>cerns, it is important to<br />
understand that OCA already has <strong>the</strong> authority to assign JSCs<br />
anywhere within <strong>the</strong> state and in fact, in some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> larger<br />
upstate counties, judges are already required to travel great<br />
distances. Court restructuring will in no way increase this preexisting<br />
reassignment power, nor will it provide additi<strong>on</strong>al<br />
reas<strong>on</strong>s for OCA to exercise this authority. In fact, under a<br />
restructured court system that elevates many additi<strong>on</strong>al judges to<br />
163<br />
JSC REPORT, supra note 40, at 5.<br />
A Court System for <strong>the</strong> <strong>Future</strong>, February 2007 89
Change language