Fifth District Rises to Chief Judge's "Excellence Initiative" Challenge
Justice James Tormey, Administrative Judge for the Fifth District, highlights the significant strides the district has made in resolving cases more effectively and efficiently under Judge Janet DiFiore's "Excellence Initiative" mandate.
January 22, 2018 at 11:22 AM
4 minute read
When Chief Judge Janet DiFiore took office two years ago, she presented all of us in the Judicial Branch with a challenge and a mandate: Do better today than you did yesterday, and do better tomorrow than you did today—excellence in all areas.
That mandate, which Judge DiFiore calls her “Excellence Initiative,” would be little but an empty slogan if it didn't come with accountability, so she also required all of us to document what and how we are doing, and spell out for her and the public what we are going to improve and how.
Frankly, the Excellence Initiative made all of us in the Judiciary reflect on where we were and where we want to be. How do we measure up under an excellence standard when regular reports are available to the public? Would people understand that sometimes delays are not the fault or under the control of the judge?
Judges and non-judicial staff felt the same anxiety anyone would have at evaluation time. Still, we all know that what gets measured gets addressed, and we welcomed the challenge, eager to prove not only how good we are, but how diligent and responsible we are with the public's trust and the public's money.
I am delighted to report that in the Fifth Judicial District—which encompasses the counties of Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Oneida, Onondaga and Oswego—the latest Excellence Initiative numbers are outstanding. As the District Administrative Judge, I take great pride, but we all share in the credit, for the great work done by the judges and non-judicial personnel.
In 2017, significant strides were made to more effectively and efficiently resolve cases to comply with what the Unified Court System calls “standards and goals,” aspirational time periods for how long it “should” take for certain types of cases to proceed to various points (with the understanding that some delays are beyond the ability of the court to avoid). Consider the Fifth District facts:
- In the Family Courts, between 97 percent and 98 percent of the litigants had their matters resolved within the standards and goals period of six months.
- In the Supreme Courts, where cases ranged from tax issues to matrimonial matters to medical malpractice cases, the number of cases pending was reduced by almost 20 percent in 2017, and those over standards and goals were reduced by 35 percent. Indeed, there were 300 fewer cases over standards and goals at the end of 2017.
- In the County Courts, where felony cases are brought, there were 24 more criminal trials held in 2017 than in 2016 (bringing the total to more than 100). Additionally, the total pending felony caseload was reduced by 10 percent from 2016 to 2017, and 92 percent of all those cases were disposed of within standards and goals.
- In the City Courts, which generally handle misdemeanors, the number of cases exceeding the 90-day standard-and-goal was reduced by 36 percent—more than 500 cases—from 2016 to 2017. Bear in mind that the 36 percent improvement in 2016 followed a double-digit improvement from 2015 to 2016, when the Excellence Initiative began.
It'd be nice to rest on our laurels and give ourselves a pat on the back, and while we do hope for the latter, we know the former is out of the question. We all know that Chief Judge DiFiore expects us to continue to improve in 2018—and we know she, and the public we serve, deserve it.
Justice. James C. Tormey III is a New York State Supreme Court Justice and the Administrative Judge for the Fifth Judicial District.
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 AllHow My Postpartum Depression Led to Launching My Firm’s Parental Leave Coaching Program
9 minute readPatent Trolls Come Under Increasing Fire in Federal Courts
Why Is It Becoming More Difficult for Businesses to Mandate Arbitration of Employment Disputes?
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Del. Court Holds Stance on Musk's $55.8B Pay Rescission, Awards Shareholder Counsel $345M
- 2Another Senior Boeing Attorney Exits, This One for CLO Post at Jet-Maintenance Company
- 3Bridge the Communication Gap: The Benefits of Having (and Being) a Bilingual Mediator
- 4CFIUS Is Locked and Loaded, but What Lies Ahead for CFIUS Enforcement Activity?
- 5Deluge of Trump-Leery Government Lawyers Join Job Market, Setting Up Free-for-All for Law Firm, In-House Openings
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