Orange County Supreme Court Is on Verge of Judicial Homecoming
But the structure has been controversial in Orange County since it opened to the public in 1970. The roofs leaked, and visitors had trouble navigating the gloomy interior.
May 21, 2018 at 03:36 PM
6 minute read
Orange County Government Center in Goshen. The court section of the building is the modernistic looking section adjacent to the red building (the annex).
Almost seven years after it was forced out of its quarters by two violent storms, the Orange County Supreme Court is on the verge of a judicial homecoming.
But the patience of exiled court personnel must stretch a little further.
A dozen county agencies already have moved back into the renovated three-winged, three-story Orange County Government Center in Goshen about 60 miles northwest of the George Washington Bridge. Only the court is still occupying temporary space.
Officials initially hoped for the building's six courtrooms to be back in business in May, but it must first receive a final order of furniture and complete needed technology and security work.
“Gut renovating and moving a whole courthouse is a complex logistical ballet with many moving parts,” said Lucian Chalfen, spokesman for the Office of Court Administration (OCA). “As of now, there is no firm move-in date, but we anticipate a move during the latter part of the summer.”
However, court personnel are confident that the renovated court, once it is occupied, will represent a significant improvement over its predecessor. It will offer access to the disabled that didn't exist when it opened, beefed up security, acoustic panels and ceilings to soak up noise and—although the number of courtrooms remains the same—added conference rooms.
The court “will have a more opening and welcoming feel,” Ronald Younkins, the recently retired executive director of the OCA said in an interview. He added that the closing, frustrating though it has been, gave officials “a chance to reshape how the building operates. The building is 50 years old. It was time to rethink.”
The modernistic government center of which the court is a tenant was evacuated after it was slammed by Hurricane Irene on Aug. 28-29, 2011. It was reopened on Sept. 6 but closed indefinitely on Sept. 8 after further damage from Tropical Storm Lee.
As debate swirled around Orange County on how to correct the situation, court officials were caught in a maelstrom of local politics, financing issues and disputes over the preservation of what many architectural critics regarded as an iconic structure.
The government center was designed by famed architect Paul Rudolph, the dean of the Yale School of Architecture and a disciple of the so-called “brutalist” school. The complex—with its vast interior spaces, exposed concrete and 87 roofs—was among his most admired projects.
But the structure has been controversial in Orange County since it opened to the public in 1970. The roofs leaked, and visitors had trouble navigating the gloomy interior. Local residents also complained that its appearance conflicted with the Goshen's quaint colonial and Victorian dwellings.
After the 2011 deluges, county officials discussed razing the entire government center but instead opted for $74 million in repairs. The Rochester firm of Clark Patterson produced a plan to preserve and renovate two-thirds of the existing structure, including the court section. One other section was torn down and replaced by a new 80,000-square-foot building that serves as an entryway to the county offices.
Fans of Rudolph and brutalism were outraged at the fate of his building, which in 2012 was placed on the World Monuments Fund watch list of threatened cultural sites around the world.
Manhattan architect Gene Kaufman who unsuccessfully offered to purchase the government center, turn it into an artist lofts and exhibit space and design a new government building for the county, called the Clark Patterson project “bastardized version” of Rudolph's vision and “an abomination.”
Jason Streb, the leader of the design team for the government center, acknowledged that Rudolph was a “world-renowned” architect, but said his government center had not weathered the test of time.
The courts didn't take any position on the preservation issue. But officials became increasingly impatient as they waited for the adequate judicial facilities it was the county's duty to provide in place of its “emergency” fixes.
Supreme Court proceedings, in what one nonjudicial employee described as a “whirlwind” of activity, moved into an annex that also housed County Court and Family Court. For a while, court personnel had to post notices to tell lawyers where they were to show up for their cases on a given day.
Two 400-square-foot waiting rooms in the annex were converted into cramped courtrooms. Later, another courtroom part was recommissioned about 0.3 miles away in the “1841 Courthouse,” which hadn't been used as a courthouse in 40 years. Busy lawyers had to shuttle back and forth between the two venues.
In June 2012, Younkins wrote to County Executive Edward A. Diana threatening the county with sanctions if it didn't immediately develop a plan to address the state concerns. “We weren't bluffing,” he said recently. “It was a serious threat.”
In May 2013, the state's Court Facilities Capital Review Board approved the county's plan to “fully restore” the lost court facilities. But Younkins became alarmed that the county was backsliding and wrote in December 2014 that “changing direction at this time—just a few months before the renovation of Division Three [the court wing] was to commence—is unacceptable.”
Justin Rodriguez, a spokesman for Orange County Executive Steven Neuhaus, said in an email that “the executive branch and the courts desired the same thing, a Government Center built on budget and as quickly as reasonably possible. The county worked closely with Ron Younkins during the process. We did remind the county Legislature of the courts authority when we were concerned the funding would be stalled.”
Demolition began in spring of 2015.
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 AllGC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Trending Stories
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