In contemplating what I might contribute to an informed discussion of issues confronting our state court system after 35 years on the bench, twenty-two of which were on the Appellate Division, First Department, one subject immediately came to mind:  the role and importance of dissent at the appellate divisions, our intermediate appellate courts.

Every case that comes before an appellate court (or every case where there is some dissension) brings with it the tension between the value of the court speaking with one unified voice versus one or more individual member’s duty or obligation to speak from his or her own personal perspective.  Every appellate judge is first and foremost a judicial officer who must swear or affirm to “support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of New York, and . . . [to] faithfully discharge the duties of [his or her] office.”  Thus while appellate judges often work towards unanimity, they reserve the right to adopt a different view, based on their interpretation of the law as applied to the facts, when the matter before the court warrants it.

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]