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

domestic violence, there are many other families whose cases do not involve a criminal aspect but who nevertheless must appear in multiple courts to resolve interrelated divorce, custody and visitation issues. Third, while OCA has managed to develop a number of new and innovative ways to serve the needs of our citizens notwithstanding the current court structure, these “work-arounds” have come at significant cost. It takes enormous effort to administer the IDV Courts, largely because they must be administered within the confines of the current system. There are no cases originally filed in the IDV part of Supreme Court; rather, eligible cases must be transferred from local criminal courts, County Court, or Family Court or reassigned from the matrimonial part of Supreme Court. 170 Court personnel must cross check against separate case management computer systems and contend with separate numbering systems and separate clerk’s offices for each of these trial courts in order to identify eligible cases. 171 Once a set of cases has been identified for transfer, the IDV judge must review each file and approve its transfer, and the transfer itself requires notices to be sent out to all of the parties and often physically moving case files from one building to another. 172 While those who administer the IDV Courts work extremely hard, eligible cases still fall through the cracks and even families whose cases are eventually transferred to IDV Courts may experience delay and additional appearances in the courts where their cases were originally filed before the transfer is finalized. Simply put, the administration of IDV Courts is complicated and labor intensive and would be far simpler and less arbitrary under a consolidated system. “[T]here are a great number of basic and major defects which are not susceptible of change or improvement within the framework of our present courts. These basic difficulties can be dealt with only by the institution of a system which, of itself, will eliminate or mitigate them.” – Tweed ong>Commissionong>, Subcommittee on Modernization and Simplification of the Court Structure (1955) Fourth, constitutional change will legitimize courts that suffer from a lack of resources and a lack of respect on account of their current positions within the judicial hierarchy. As discussed earlier in this Report, Family Court judges adjudicate more than two-and-a-half times the number of cases that 170 Information provided by OCA. 171 Id. 172 Id. A Court System for the Future, February 2007 95

Supreme Court Justices hear every year. 173 The inevitable outgrowths of such taxed resources are endless wait times, an understanding of the complex issues facing individual families that is cursory at best, and an overall sense by litigants that Family Court is for the poor and Supreme Court is for the rich. “[M]erger will result in elevating the status of judges now serving on ‘inferior courts’ to where they belong.” – Cyrus Vance, Memorandum to Gov. Carey (1976) Finally, we note the irony inherent in this objection. On one hand, past opponents of reform have sometimes expressed misgivings over granting excessive power and authority to OCA. Yet at the same time, they have argued against restructuring on the ground that OCA should be left to reform the system by administrative fiat. This inconsistency aside, we believe our proposal grants OCA the authority it needs to ensure a much more efficient operation of the courts while diminishing the need for the kinds of administrative, extra-constitutional fixes OCA has had to implement out of necessity in the past. Concerns About the Fiscal Impact Opponents of past restructuring proposals have suggested that such initiatives will cost – rather than save – a significant amount of money. In 1999, the Association of Supreme Court Justices claimed that court merger legislation then pending “[w]ould cost in excess of $50 million dollars annually without improving the timely delivery of justice.” 174 This claim is both outdated and inaccurate. The reality is that court reform will create efficiencies and enormous, quantifiable cost savings that will be realized both publicly and privately. Section Three of our Report demonstrates that a restructuring of the courts will save the state budget alone some $59 million per year. More significantly, our detailed analysis shows that private individuals, businesses and municipalities will save $443 million per year, for a total savings of $502 million per year as a result of court restructuring. Our analysis has been vetted by economists, and the respected National Center for State Courts has not only endorsed our 173 Data provided by OCA. 174 JSC REPORT, supra note 40, at 4. 96 A Court System for the Future, February 2007

domestic violence, <strong>the</strong>re are many o<strong>the</strong>r families whose cases do<br />

not involve a criminal aspect but who never<strong>the</strong>less must appear<br />

in multiple courts to resolve interrelated divorce, custody and<br />

visitati<strong>on</strong> issues.<br />

Third, while OCA has managed to develop a number <strong>of</strong><br />

new and innovative ways to serve <strong>the</strong> needs <strong>of</strong> our citizens<br />

notwithstanding <strong>the</strong> current court structure, <strong>the</strong>se “work-arounds”<br />

have come at significant cost. It takes enormous effort to<br />

administer <strong>the</strong> IDV <strong>Courts</strong>, largely because <strong>the</strong>y must be<br />

administered within <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>fines <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> current system. There<br />

are no cases originally filed in <strong>the</strong> IDV part <strong>of</strong> Supreme Court;<br />

ra<strong>the</strong>r, eligible cases must be transferred from local criminal<br />

courts, County Court, or Family Court or reassigned from <strong>the</strong><br />

matrim<strong>on</strong>ial part <strong>of</strong> Supreme Court. 170 Court pers<strong>on</strong>nel must<br />

cross check against separate case management computer systems<br />

and c<strong>on</strong>tend with separate numbering systems and separate<br />

clerk’s <strong>of</strong>fices for each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se trial courts in order to identify<br />

eligible cases. 171 Once a set <strong>of</strong> cases has been identified for<br />

transfer, <strong>the</strong> IDV judge must review each file and approve its<br />

transfer, and <strong>the</strong> transfer itself requires notices to be sent out to<br />

all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> parties and <strong>of</strong>ten physically moving case files from <strong>on</strong>e<br />

building to ano<strong>the</strong>r. 172 While those who administer <strong>the</strong> IDV<br />

<strong>Courts</strong> work extremely hard, eligible cases still fall through <strong>the</strong><br />

cracks and even families whose cases are eventually transferred<br />

to IDV <strong>Courts</strong> may experience delay and additi<strong>on</strong>al appearances<br />

in <strong>the</strong> courts where <strong>the</strong>ir cases were originally filed before <strong>the</strong><br />

transfer is finalized. Simply put, <strong>the</strong> administrati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> IDV<br />

<strong>Courts</strong> is complicated and labor intensive and would be far<br />

simpler and less arbitrary under a c<strong>on</strong>solidated system.<br />

“[T]here are a great number <strong>of</strong><br />

basic and major defects which<br />

are not susceptible <strong>of</strong> change<br />

or improvement within <strong>the</strong><br />

framework <strong>of</strong> our present<br />

courts. These basic difficulties<br />

can be dealt with <strong>on</strong>ly by <strong>the</strong><br />

instituti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a system which,<br />

<strong>of</strong> itself, will eliminate or mitigate<br />

<strong>the</strong>m.”<br />

– Tweed <str<strong>on</strong>g>Commissi<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g>,<br />

Subcommittee <strong>on</strong><br />

Modernizati<strong>on</strong> and<br />

Simplificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

Court Structure (1955)<br />

Fourth, c<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>al change will legitimize courts that<br />

suffer from a lack <strong>of</strong> resources and a lack <strong>of</strong> respect <strong>on</strong> account<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir current positi<strong>on</strong>s within <strong>the</strong> judicial hierarchy. As<br />

discussed earlier in this Report, Family Court judges adjudicate<br />

more than two-and-a-half times <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> cases that<br />

170<br />

Informati<strong>on</strong> provided by OCA.<br />

171<br />

Id.<br />

172<br />

Id.<br />

A Court System for <strong>the</strong> <strong>Future</strong>, February 2007 95

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!