Chief Judge Janet DiFiore speaks at the Justice For All luncheon at the New York State Bar Association Annual Meeting on Jan. 25. Photo: David Handschuh/NYLJ.

Chief Judge Janet DiFiore's plan to overhaul the complex system of low-level trial courts in New York now has at least one major opponent after a trade group representing the state's Supreme Court justices announced their opposition to the proposal late Monday.

The Association of Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of New York argued in a press release that the plan would diminish the power of voters to select local judges.

"The proposal removes the power of citizens to meaningfully select the judges in their communities who will decide, for example, family matters, or probate disputes, or criminal cases, or general civil disputes, and vests this fundamental constitutional right in the hands of administrators," the group wrote.

That's because, they wrote, DiFiore's plan would eliminate many of the state's 11 specialized trial courts, the lowest level, and consolidate them and their justices into three major sections. 

Many of those judges are currently elected by voters. Justices of the Family Court outside New York City, for example, are chosen that way. Others, like justices of the Court of Claims, are appointed to the bench.

DiFiore's plan would merge that system into a new one, where many of those justices would give up their previous positions and serve on a newly expanded state Supreme Court, which, despite its name, is on the lowest tier of the state judiciary.

The second section, called the Municipal Court, would be formed by consolidating the more localized courts in the state's major cities, including New York City. Town and village courts would make up the third section and wouldn't be changed by the plan.

The proposal is intended to simplify the state's trial court system, which some have said is difficult to navigate for litigants, particularly when more than one venue is involved in a particular case. 

But critics focused on the "unbridled discretion" court administrators would have to shuffle judges around the state.

Under the current way the judiciary is set up, a survivor of domestic violence may have to attend criminal court proceedings for the charges against their alleged abuser and have a separate case in civil court to finalize their divorce. 

A spokesman for the state Office of Court Administration said the arguments from the AJSCSNY were a result of the group's "self-interest," and said the benefits of the consolidation proposal would far outweigh their concerns.

"The objections raised by the Supreme Court Justices Association are focused on self-interest," said Lucian Chalfen, the OCA spokesman. "The Association has not addressed the many benefits that flow from simplifying a complicated outdated court structure."

The AJSCSNY argued that the state's current plethora of trial courts should be seen as an advantage, showcasing the specialized attention that litigants receive in each venue, rather than a complicated process for unique cases.

"New York's tapestry of courts provides both a sophisticated court of general jurisdiction—the Supreme Court—as well as other discrete courts of limited jurisdiction created to accomplish their own important specialized work," the group wrote. "This is a reflection of the volume, complexity and diversity of cases coming to the courts."

Under DiFiore's plan, the state Court of Claims, County Courts, Family Courts and Surrogate's Courts would all be eliminated. The justices who served on those courts would remain and become state Supreme Court justices.

Their titles would change, but the length of their terms and the way they're selected would not. The judicial position once held by a Family Court justice would still have a 10-year term, for example, and would still be filled through an election.

The problem with that, the AJSCSNY argued, is that the proposal would then allow the state Office of Court administration to place those judges in whatever role they see fit.

DiFiore's plan would divide the state Supreme Court into six divisions: family, probate, criminal, state claims, commercial and general. 

But, unlike the current system, neither voters nor the individuals who currently appoint judges, like the governor, would decide where those jurists are placed. That would be up to court administrators, which the AJSCSNY took particular issue with.

"Under the guise of this 'simplification,' the proposal would accord OCA the unbridled discretion to alter these divisions and move judges around the court system wherever it wants, whether for appropriate or inappropriate reason," the group wrote.

Chalfen, the OCA spokesman, said court administrators were confident judges could successfully take on a wider breadth of cases under the reform plan. That method is already mirrored in the federal judiciary, he said.

"While there is no need to respond to all of the Association's assertions, we note that federal judges preside over every category of litigation that is assigned," Chalfen said. "There is no reason to believe that New York's Judges cannot perform with the same competence as their colleagues on the Federal Bench."

The AJSCSNY questioned, as an example of their concerns, how DiFiore's plan would affect the state's recently enacted Raise the Age law, which bars individuals under the age of 18 from being treated as adults in the state's criminal justice system.

That law currently requires that 16- and 17-year-olds appear in a specialized Youth Part of the Criminal Court, where their cases are either adjudicated or transferred to Family Court. Most cases have been sent to Family Court since the law took effect last year, state data shows.

The state Legislature created that mechanism to ensure that criminal cases against children are treated differently than those of adults. It's unclear how DiFiore's plan would change that scheme, the AJSCSNY wrote.

The group also claimed that DiFiore's plan would cost the state money. They said accounting firm KPMG set a price tag of $38 million for a similar idea proposed in 1987, which would translate to more than double that amount in today's dollars.

Chalfen said that prediction "is dated and based on inaccurate information."

A commission convened in 2007 by former Chief Judge Judith Kaye, an outspoken supporter of consolidating the state's trial courts, found a different result. That panel, in its final report, found that a similar proposal could save the state approximately $500 million each year.

DiFiore's plan hasn't received such an analysis since it was formally proposed two weeks ago. At least one public hearing has been scheduled by members of the Legislature to review the proposal, at which lawmakers have said they plan to bring up the topic of cost.

The hearing is scheduled for Nov. 13 in New York City, according to lawmakers. 

READ MORE:

NY Lawmakers Set to Hold First Hearing on DiFiore's Trial Court Reform Plan

DiFiore Unveils Detailed Proposal for Lawmakers to Overhaul New York's Trial Courts

NY Lawmakers See Court Reform, Assigned Counsel Rate Hike With Favor

DiFiore Renews Call for Lawmakers to Restructure NY Court System

Report Argues Town and Village Justices Ignore Plight of Poor Defendants Facing Fines