DiFiore's Trial Court Restructuring Plan Draws Opposition From Justices' Group
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.
October 08, 2019 at 02:34 PM
7 minute read
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:
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 AllRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
In Eric Adams Case and Other Corruption Matters, Prosecutors Seem Bent on Pushing Boundaries of Their Already Awesome Power
5 minute readEric Adams Trial Set for April as Defense Urges Dismissal of Bribery Count
Major Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 2Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 3When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
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