Judiciary Chairs in NY Legislature Plan Busy Legislative Session With List of 2020 Priorities
The pair of lawmakers is also united on the issue of attorney mental health, specifically in regards to removing it as a considered factor for being admitted to the state bar in New York. They're both the main sponsor of a bill to address the issue.
December 23, 2019 at 12:38 PM
7 minute read
For the first time in recent history, a major overhaul of New York's trial courts will be given serious thought next year by both of the Legislature's judiciary chairs, who are also aligned on a host of other issues, like the mental health of attorneys and legalizing paid surrogacy.
State Sen. Brad Hoylman, D-Manhattan, and Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, D-Bronx, also said the judiciary would likely receive its requested spending increase despite the state's major budget deficit.
Dinowitz, a Bronx attorney, said he would actually prefer more funding for the state's courts than what officials asked for in their budget request this month. The state Office of Court Administration is seeking a 2% increase next year, or an additional $46 million.
"I think they need more than that, to be perfectly honest," Dinowitz said. "They're asking for 2%, and I think that's pretty consistent with recent years."
Dinowitz said he was confident the request wouldn't be a problem in the Assembly, but that he hadn't spoken to Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, D-Bronx, or lawmakers who lead the budget negotiation process.
Hoylman, an attorney who represents part of Manhattan, also predicted that the increase would be approved by the state Legislature. He said the request was reasonable and shouldn't be impaired by the state's current fiscal challenges.
New York is currently facing a $6.1 billion budget deficit, about two-thirds of which is related to Medicaid costs. Gov. Andrew Cuomo and lawmakers haven't come up with a definitive plan for filling that gap, but cuts in the state budget are possible over the next year.
Hoylman said that, as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he plans to do everything in his power to stop those cuts from reaching the state court system.
"I think it's our responsibility as legislators to make certain that our judicial branch is funded based on their needs," Hoylman said. "Certainly, we should do everything in our power to prevent budget cuts from impacting the administration of justice. I'm not going to let that happen as chair of the Judiciary Committee."
Hoylman and Dinowitz also plan to use the power of their respective committees next year to consider a plan from Chief Judge Janet DiFiore to overhaul the state's current structure of trial courts. DiFiore formally proposed the plan in September.
As it's currently written, DiFiore's proposal would consolidate the state's current set of 11 different trial courts—the lowest tier—into just three. The plan is intended to streamline court operations for litigants who currently have to resolve disputes in multiple courts.
The proposal would require an amendment to the state constitution, which is more complicated than passing a bill. It would have to be approved by the current sitting Legislature, then again by the next class of lawmakers, and then sent to voters for approval.
State court officials are seeking to have the Legislature cast its first vote on the plan next year. If it's pushed off to 2021, the second vote wouldn't be able to happen until 2023 at the earliest.
Neither Hoylman nor Dinowitz were sure if an initial vote would be possible next year, but both said DiFiore's plan would likely be tweaked to address concerns from various stakeholders who've critiqued it. A pair of legislative hearings were held on the plan in November.
"I don't think this is something that's going to happen very quickly. There are a lot of stakeholders, and a lot of interested parties," Dinowitz said. "When we talk about something so major, I don't think it's something that should be rushed through."
Hoylman said he's been speaking with officials from OCA about concerns over the proposal he's heard from Democrats in the Legislature. His next step, he said, is to keep that line of communication open and adjust as needed.
"We've been in contact with OCA about some of the suggestions my colleagues have been making," Hoylman said. "The bill is really a starting point. I expect there will be some changes to it before it's actually introduced."
Dinowitz and Hoylman are also aligned on at least two other legislative matters, one of which isn't related to their respective roles leading the judiciary committees.
That's the legalization of paid surrogacy, which would allow women to be paid for acting as a surrogate for individuals who can't have a child on their own, like infertile or same-sex couples. Legislation to legalize the practice failed to pass in New York earlier this year.
Hoylman, who's had at least one of his children through a surrogate in California, sponsors the bill in the Senate. Dinowitz isn't the main sponsor of the bill in the Assembly, but he said he's planning to advocate for its passage next year.
"I think that's an important issue to a lot of people," Dinowitz said. "If we are representatives who claim we're pro-family, then we want to create a situation where more people can have families."
The pair of lawmakers is also united on the issue of attorney mental health, specifically in regards to removing it as a considered factor for being admitted to the state bar in New York. They're both the main sponsor of a bill to address the issue.
There's currently a question on the application for admission to the state bar in New York that asks prospective attorneys if they've dealt with any mental health issues. The form then asks the applicant to elaborate on those issues.
State court officials, in recent weeks, have weighed whether to remove that question from the application, or change it in some way. Sources have said it's likely the question will be removed next year, but that will depend on how state court officials act in the coming weeks.
Both Dinowitz and Hoylman said that, either way, they're planning to pass their bill. The legislation would bar state court officials from asking about mental health on the application.
"The problem with doing something administratively is that it can be undone administratively," Dinowitz said. "So, if we really want this to be the case, then it makes more sense to do it legislatively."
Each lawmaker also said they have other legislative goals related to the state's court system.
Dinowitz said, for example, that lawmakers may consider adding more judgeships to the state Supreme Court in areas where they're able. There's a cap to how many the Legislature can add, per the state constitution.
Hoylman, meanwhile, said he plans to ask for more funding for the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, the panel that evaluates complaints made against the state's judges. It received a major funding increase last year, but Hoylman said it could use more.
"I think we need to fight for adequate funding for the Commission on Judicial Conduct," Hoylman said.
The legislative session is scheduled to begin Jan. 8, 2020 and will run through early June.
READ MORE:
NY State Court Officials Request $46 Million Budget Increase From Cuomo, Legislature
DiFiore's Reorganization Plan Projected to Cost $13.1 Million Per Year, NY Court Administrators Say
New York Moves Closer to Axing Mental Health Question From Bar Application
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
© 2025 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 AllRelaxing Penalties on Discovery Noncompliance Allows Criminal Cases to Get Decided on Merit
5 minute readBipartisan Lawmakers to Hochul Urge Greater Student Loan Forgiveness for Public-Interest Lawyers
'Playing the Clock'?: Hochul Says NY's Discovery Loophole Is to Blame for Wide Dismissal of Criminal Cases
So Who Won? Congestion Pricing Ruling Leaves Both Sides Claiming Victory, Attorneys Seeking Clarification
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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