Presiding Justice Alan D. Scheinkman announced today that the Second Department will hear 25 to 30 more cases a week to reduce backlogs beginning this week.

He said it will be the first major increase in the number of cases heard each day in nearly a decade. The calendar will begin at 10 a.m. with one or two recesses, meaning longer waits for some lawyers, Scheinkman said. But, he noted, lawyers will be able to use their mobile devices and laptops in the attorneys' room while following the court's progress on a large video monitor.

On the four days a week when the court hears cases, four more cases a day will be scheduled, increasing the number from 20 to 24 each day. But when put together with other initiatives that are being implemented, the number of additional cases is more like 25 to 30, Scheinkman said.

“It can take as long as 18 months for a civil appeal to obtain a place on the court's day calendar and then more time for a decision to be rendered,” he said in a column he wrote for the New York Law Journal. “We have an obligation to meet this problem head-on and to overcome it.”

The department is also creating special benches of volunteer justices to sit on Wednesday afternoons in the early fall. A date has been set for each bench to focus on cases in a particular subject area: delayed and complex matrimonial cases, Commercial Division appeals and a special land use and zoning bench.

Scheinkman also is introducing mandatory mediation, which involves special masters who will conference the backlogged perfected cases.

“The special masters will be retired judges and experienced attorneys who will be asked to devote 90 minutes pro bono to conferencing each assigned case,” Scheinkman wrote. The parties have the option of engaging the special masters to continue their work if they're making progress.

In addition, routine motions to extend the time to perfect appeals or submit briefs will be less likely to be granted.

“Many of the extension motions now made are supported by nothing more than a claim that the 'press of business' or 'large work volume' has prevented the timely completion of the relevant appellate activity,” Scheinkman wrote. “Given the near crushing workload confronting our court, a generalized plea of 'press of business' will likely not engender much sympathy.”