Assemblyman Seeks to Expand Number of Judicial Departments
Brooklyn Assemblyman Joe Lentol introduced legislation Monday that would increase the state's four departments to five by creating a Second Department, North consisting of the counties in the 9th Judicial District immediately north of New York City.
November 29, 2017 at 06:03 PM
4 minute read
Assemblyman Joseph Lentol. Photo: ZUMA Press/Newscom
ALBANY—A Brooklyn assemblyman has introduced legislation to increase the number of judicial departments in New York in an effort to lessen the “overcrowding” in the Appellate Division, Second Department.
Assemblyman Joe Lentol, a Democrat, introduced legislation Monday that would increase the state's four judicial departments to five by creating a Second Department, North consisting of the counties north of New York City within the Ninth Judicial District, which include Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Putnam and Dutchess counties. Under Lentol's proposal, the Second Department South would consist of Kings (Brooklyn), Queens, Nassau and Suffolk counties. The bill presently makes no mention of Richmond County (Staten Island), which is in the Second Department.
According to the legislation's justification, it takes up to 18 months for oral arguments to be heard after filing a brief in the Second Department. By comparison, it generally takes six to eight months from filing a brief to oral arguments at the First Department, which covers Manhattan and the Bronx.
Splitting the Second Department would “speed up case review to more suitable times,” the bill says. But the bill's language is unclear as to whether more judges would have to be hired and no estimate of the cost was provided.
Because Lentol's proposal would amend the state's constitution, it would have to be passed by both the state Assembly and Senate during two consecutive legislative sessions and then sent to New York voters for approval.
Yoel Weisshaus, a New York City-based paralegal, said he had reached out to several legislators over what he called “extreme delays” at the Second Department.
“I reached out to Lentol and he was very receptive and understood the problem,” Weisshaus told the New York Law Journal on Wednesday, noting that Lentol agreed to sponsor the legislation.
Lentol, who was not immediately available for an interview Wednesday, is the head of the chamber's codes committee, which reviews all legislation relating to criminal justice.
Lentol's proposal comes weeks after voters rejected a once-every-20-years ballot proposal to hold a constitutional convention to consider revisions to the New York State Constitution. Proponents of holding a constitutional convention, including the State Bar, had argued that holding a constitutional convention would provide an opportunity to modernize the state's court system.
Chief Judge Janet DiFiore said earlier this month that she wasn't going to wait another 20 years to reform the state's “byzantine” court system. DiFiore reconvened a panel of judges, attorneys and academics to examine legislative reforms on how to make the courts more efficient.
“The goal is to reduce delays, make the courts more efficient, reduce costs to the litigants and improve the quality of justice,” Administrative Judge Alan Scheinkman, one of the chairs of the task force, told the New York Law Journal earlier this month.
A spokesman for the state's court system said in an email Wednesday that they hadn't yet reviewed Lentol's legislation, but will be reviewing the proposal in the near future.
Bronx Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, the recently named chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, told the New York Law Journal that the Lentol's proposal is “something worth looking at.”
“It's something I think we should examine. I'm not clear whether or not it's necessary. I'd need to see data,” Dinowitz said during a phone interview. Lentol's proposal of splitting the Second Department into two sectors could also come with additional costs, particularly if each sector has its own set of judges, Dinowitz added.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEuropean, US Litigation Funding Experts Look for Commonalities at NYU Event
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250