For the first time in at least two decades, state lawmakers in New York are set to hold a public hearing on a proposal from state court officials to consolidate the current complex—and many say archaic—web of trial courts into a three-tier structure in order simplify the state's judicial system.

The State Senate and Assembly in New York are expected to hear testimony later this year on the proposal, lawmakers said this week after Chief Judge Janet DiFiore unveiled the plan.

"We're working with our conference leadership in confirming a date for at least one hearing, and maybe future ones in different parts of the state," said State Sen. Brad Hoylman, D-Manhattan.

Hoylman, who chairs the Judiciary Committee in his chamber, said he's optimistic that the Legislature could take the first step toward codifying the proposal during the upcoming legislative session.

"We'll have to see how the hearings go. There may be some considerations I haven't foreseen, but I have a willing partner in the Assembly and I'll speak to Senate leadership," Hoylman said. "I'm hopeful we can make significant headway on something that's stymied Albany for decades."

Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, D-Bronx, who chairs the Judiciary Committee in the lower house, said the hearing is scheduled for Nov. 13 in New York City.

He said the idea of reforming the state's trial courts is far from new. It was already widely discussed when he first took office more than two decades ago. He said he wants to hear from stakeholders before taking a position on DiFiore's plan.

"Certainly the issue of the hodgepodge system we have of all these different courts in the state is something that needs to be examined, no question about it," Dinowitz said. "I think the proposal that has been put forth certainly merits careful consideration."

State court officials have been waiting for the Legislature to take a hard look at the state's trial courts for decades, since former Chief Judge Judith Kaye breathed new life into the idea during her tenure. Her successors, including DiFiore, have continued that effort.

A spokesman for the Office of Court Administration said Friday that it is looking forward to the Legislature's public hearings on the topic and plan to have officials testify.

"We very much look forward to the public hearings and testifying in support of the initiative," said Lucian Chalfen, an OCA spokesman.

Hoylman said that, aside from state court officials, the Legislature would like to hear from other stakeholders in the debate on court reform, including those in the legal profession. The State Bar Association has historically been a major proponent of reforming the state's trial courts.

"Certainly I'd be interested in hearing from legal service providers, community groups, attorneys themselves, bar associations, and business organizations," Hoylman said. "It's really just about anyone who has to navigate the labyrinth that is New York state's trial court system."

Not all of the feedback they'll hear on DiFiore's proposal is guaranteed to be positive, Dinowitz said. He's also interested in hearing from a wide range of individuals and groups with a stake in court reform, some who may be opposed to the measure.

"I want to hear from the various experts on both sides of the issue," Dinowitz said. "I imagine there's a diversity of opinions on this."

DiFiore's proposal, as it was laid out this week, may not be what the Legislature ends up passing, if they act on the measure at all next year. Hoylman said they're planning to deliberate on a final proposal after the public hearing, and garner input from other lawmakers.

"I see it as a starting point for discussions—a very comprehensive one, but subject to further input through the public hearing process and our colleagues in the Legislature," Hoylman said.

Hoylman said he didn't have any immediate concerns with the proposal, which is a dense read for anyone willing to analyze the actual legislation.

The plan would consolidate the state's current structure of 11 different trial courts into just three sections: the State Supreme Court, a Municipal Court, and the town and village courts.

In an effort to avoid opposition to the proposal, DiFiore's plan would allow each judicial position to retain the same term it had before transitioning to the new system, and the same process for being selected.

While their title would change, the length of their term and how they end up on the bench wouldn't. A judicial position previously on the Court of Claims would still have a nine-year term, and would still be appointed by the governor, for example.

The proposal was designed that way to avoid debate over how judges should be selected in New York, which has historically been a controversial topic. But Dinowitz said the issue may come up anyway.

"Some people want elections for everything, others don't think judges should be elected at all," Dinowitz said. "Even though this tries to avoid addressing that issue, that doesn't mean the issue won't come up in context."

The plan would also eliminate a decades-old cap on the number of state Supreme Court justices in each district and allow the Legislature to change the number of appellate courts in New York. The state currently has four appellate courts, but some have pushed for at least one more.

Both Hoylman and Dinowitz said they would support splitting the Appellate Division, Second Department, which handles more appellate litigation than any of the other three courts.

"That's something that needs to be done regardless of everything else," Dinowitz said.

The process for codifying the proposal is more complicated than when lawmakers approve other measures because it would require an amendment to the state constitution.

For that to happen, the bill has to pass the current sitting Legislature, and then be approved by the next class of lawmakers. It would then go on the ballot for voters.

Lawmakers could take the first vote on the proposal during next year's legislative session. Because each seat in the Legislature is up for reelection next year, a new class of lawmakers can take the second vote in 2021. Then, it could go on the ballot later that year.

Next year's legislative session is scheduled to begin in January.

READ MORE: