Increases the number of city court judges in certain cities and sets forth the annual salary for such city court judges

I. PROPOSAL

For more than 30 years following the State takeover of local court fund- ing (see L. 1976, c. 966; Judiciary Law § 39), the Judiciary and the Legislature have collaborated closely to ensure that the structure and resources of the State's 61 City Courts outside New York City are well- suited to community needs. Every four or five years, this Office, with the assistance of a committee of sitting City Court judges represen- tative of all regions of the State and courts of varying sizes, under- takes a detailed study of City Court operations around the State. This study produces a series of recommendations for reform, which then are passed on to the Legislature for its approval(1).

Originally intended as a means by which to permit the Legislature fairly to determine applications by individual city courts for judgeship upgrades in light of their new status as State courts, this collab- oration has grown increasingly more important as the years have gone by and the City Courts have taken on more prominent and more complex roles in the criminal justice system. Today, in 2009, these courts are on the front-line of that system. Along with the Justice Courts, they preside over nearly all preliminary felony proceedings brought outside New York City and oversee the prosecution of most of the region's quality of life offenses. As importantly, City Courts have become a central focus in the State's twin battles against drug crime and family violence. Across the State, many of them have been designated as regional Drug Courts to preside over drug prosecutions commenced both in their respective cities and in surrounding towns and villages, refashioning the paradigm for drug crime adjudication and contributing mightily to significant reductions in recidivism and public expense that judicially-supervised treatment methodologies - the hallmark of Drug Courts - can offer. At the same time, some City Courts have been designated as Domestic Violence courts giving them critical responsibility for superintending community response to family violence. Other City Courts have taken on other specialized responsibilities, such as presiding over mental health and teen parts, requiring them to go well beyond the traditional passive roles expected of the local criminal courts.

Notably, what ties all of these assignments together is that each puts the judge in the crucial position of gatekeeper for fragile lives held in the balance. In these specialized courts, people who have committed what typically are low-level offenses appear to be judged, and the court's ability to do this wisely and creatively can often be the difference between a productive, law-abiding life and one marked by greater and more serious crimes.

Even while City Court judges serve these critical roles in the criminal and family justice arenas, they also must oversee all landlord and tenant litigation in their communities, as well as all small claims and commercial claims cases. Moreover, those who are full-time will some- times be assigned temporarily to service on County or Family Court where caseload conditions in those courts are such that added judicial resources are needed.

In short, more so perhaps than as to any other court in our trial court system, it is vital that City Courts be maintained in a state of maximum preparedness to cope with their caseloads. As it now is six years since the Judiciary last reported on the needs of the City Courts and three years since the last comprehensive legislative action with respect to these courts, we have commissioned another ad hoc advisory committee to study the City Courts and to make recommendations for any needed changes in their structure. This committee has met over the course of the last year and now has filed its report and recommendations with us.

This measure would give effect to these recommendations. They include:

* Increase allocations of four regular part-time judgeships and convert ten such judgeships to full-time status: Current law provides for one or more part-time City Court judges in 50 City Courts. See Uniform City Court Act § 2104(c). In some instances, these judges are intended to supplement the work of the full-time City Court judge or judges of the court. In other Courts, where there are no full-time City Court judges, they perform all the judicial work. In all cases, these part-time judges are compensated in accordance with a sala- ry scale first fixed by the Legislature in 1984. Under this scale, as it operates today, part-time judges are compensated for their service in an amount equal to one-quarter or one-half the salary of a full-time judge. See Judiciary Law §221-i. The rate for each position has been fixed in accordance with prevailing views as to the level of regular service that properly can be expected of the judge that fills it (2).

As the Legislature already has recognized, experience has shown that there is frequent need to revise these allocations and, occasionally, to change the status of a City Court judgeship from part-time to full-time. In many instances, changes in local demographics or, more recently, the nature of the court's workload (e.g., its assumption of specialty court responsibilities - responsibilities that magnify its normal workload exponentially) moot the expectations that were the foundation for a City Court's judgeship allocation. In most instances, that allocation was the product of another, past generation, and instituted when caseloads were

smaller and local governments had to bear the costs of City Court oper- ations. It does not reflect the reality of those operations in 2009. Accordingly, as we have done in the past, we now propose a slate of judgeship adjustments that will bring the City Courts up to date (see Appendix A for a list). These adjustments include upgrades for selected one-quarter salaried judgeships and conversion of some 10 part-time judgeships to full-time status (3).

* Establish new full-time judgeships: In past submissions of this nature, we have proposed creation of new judgeships for selected City Courts. In some instances, court workloads have been such that upgrades in existing judgeships are neither possible or impractical. Thus, over the years, we've asked the Legislature to establish new judgeships in Syracuse, Albany, Schenectady, Buffalo and Rochester - and the Legislature has complied. In this measure, we do so again, and for the same reason, in the cities of Buffalo, Newburgh, Troy and Yonkers.

* Expand residency requirement: Under present law, the general rule is that each City Court judge must reside in the city in which he or she serves. There are numerous exceptions to this rule, however. In venues where experience has demon- strated that it is difficult to find a sufficient pool of lawyers will- ing to serve on City Court, the Legislature, with the agreement of local officials, has expanded the residency requirement, typically to permit the judge of a City Court in one of those venues to reside anywhere in the surrounding county. This measure would add to the list of exceptions the City Court of Watervliet. There, local officials have expressed a wish that the residency rule permit any resident of Albany County to be eligible to serve in one of the two judgeships allocated to the Court.

* Change from appointive to elective status for the appointive judge- ships in Ithaca and Lockport: A preponderance of the State's 163 City Court judges are elected. The remainder are appointed by City Mayors. This year, at local request - i.e., at the request of the mayor and City Court judges of each affected City - we are asking that two of the existing appointive positions be converted to elective.

II. PROCESS

The Committee's recommendations for City Court judicial personnel reflect not only the Committee's consideration of a series of objective criteria but also a process of statewide consultation with mayors, judg- es and other stakeholders in the justice system. Among the quantitative factors the Committee considered in determining the proper allocation of City Court judgeships are:

* Caseloads - including total cases, cases per capita, and annual civil, criminal misdemeanor and criminal felony caseload growth trends;

* Demographics - including population changes, economic factors and crime predictor data that may presage future caseloads;

* Judicial resources - including caseloads per full-time and part-time judge, the proportion of cases (e.g. Drug Court and Domestic Violence Court cases) that are resource intensive, the availability of other judges in the affected City Court and other City Courts in the county, and the need to temporarily assign a locality's City Court judges to serve in the County and Family Courts; and

* Facilities - including the suitability and sufficiency of existing courtrooms and other facilities to accommodate the proposed new and expanded judgeships.

As in the early 1980's, 1994, 1998 and 2003, we offer this proposal confident that it will best enable City Courts to continue fulfilling their constitutional mission to provide speedy and efficient justice in urban communities across New York State. Along with members of our Ad Hoc Committee, we urge enactment of this measure and look forward to working with the Legislature to ensure the continued vitality of New York State's local justice system.

This measure will take effect on April 1, 2011. Accordingly, it will have no fiscal impact on the State in FY 2010-11.

Legislative history

None. New proposal.

Footnotes

(1) As noted, the Legislature has approved these submissions in the past. In 1984, it approved a uniform salary structure for part-time City Court judges. L. 1984, c. 986. In 1988, it approved a series of recom- mendations including elimination of local city court acts in favor of a single enabling court statute in the Uniform City Court Act, institution of a uniform $15,000 jurisdictional ceiling, merger of multiple courts into a single court in those cities having bifurcated or trifurcated court structures, creation of some new full-time judgeships, conversion of some part-time judgeships to full-time status and upgrades in the status of other part-time judgeships. L. 1988, c. 397. In 1995, the Legislature again approved recommendations calling for creation of new judgeships and conversion and upgrading of others. L. 1995, c. 463. In 1998 and 1999, the Legislature approved another recommendation - this one calling for amendment of section 26 of Article VI of the State Constitution to permit full-time City Court judges to be assigned to temporary service on County and Family Courts. In 2001, the Legislature approved another package of recommendations calling for creation of new judgeships and conversion and upgrading of others. L. 2001, c. 584. All of these recommendations were the product of ad hoc committees of City Court judges assembled by the Judiciary in the early-1980's, 1994, 1998

and 2003, respectively. Most recently, the Legislature approved recom- mendations yielding creation of further new judgeships and conversion and upgrading of many others - including elimination of the position of Acting City Court Judge.

(2) This salary range is between $27,200 and $54,400. While there is no specific statutory direction that the actual amount of service given by each judge, as a percentage of his or her work week, correspond to the fraction of full-time service represented by his or her compensation, it has informally been the administrative practice over the years to expect that that be so.

(3) Persons holding the office of full-time City Court judge are not permitted to practice law. Note that, prior to filing this measure with the Legislature, all proposed changes in judgeships were shared with all City Mayors and City Court judges across the State. All changes are submitted with the approval of the Mayors and judges of each city affected.

APPENDIX A TABLE OF CHANGES City Present Proposed Allocation Allocation When Change Effective

Albany 4FT 5FT 4/1/11 1PT(1/2)

Amsterdam 1FT 1FT NO CHANGE 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/4)

Auburn 1FT 1FT NO CHANGE 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/4)

Batavia 1FT 1FT NO CHANGE 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/4)

Beacon 1FT 1FT NO CHANGE 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/4)

Binghamton 2FT 2FT NO CHANGE 1PT(1/2) 1PT(1/2)

Buffalo 13FT 14FT 1/1/12

Canandaigua 1FT 1FT NO CHANGE 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/4)

Cohoes 2PT(1/2) 2PT(1/2) NO CHANGE

Corning 1FT 1FT NO CHANGE 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/4)

Cortland 1FT 1FT 4/1/11 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/2)

Dunkirk 1FT 1FT NO CHANGE 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/4)

Elmira 2FT 2FT NO CHANGE

Fulton 1FT 1FT NO CHANGE 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/4)

Geneva 1PT(1/2) 1PT(1/2) NO CHANGE 2PT(1/4) 2PT(1/4)

Glen Cove 2PT(1/2) 2PT(1/2) NO CHANGE

Glens Falls 1FT 1FT NO CHANGE 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/4)

Gloversville 1FT 1FT NO CHANGE 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/4)

Hornell 1PT(1/2) 1PT(1/2) NO CHANGE 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/4)

Hudson 1PT(1/2) 1PT(1/2) NO CHANGE 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/4)

Ithaca 1FT 2FT 4/1/11 1PT(1/2)

Jamestown 1FT 2FT 4/1/11 1PT(1/2)

Johnstown 1PT(1/2) 1PT(1/2) NO CHANGE 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/4)

Kingston 1FT 1FT NO CHANGE 1PT(1/2) 1PT(1/2)

Lackawanna 1FT 1FT NO CHANGE 1PT(1/2) 1PT(1/2)

Little Falls 2PT(1/4) 2PT(1/4) NO CHANGE

Lockport 1FT 2FT 4/1/11 1PT(1/2)

Long Beach 2FT 2FT NO CHANGE

Mechanic- ville 2PT(1/4) 2PT(1/4) NO CHANGE

Middletown 1FT 2FT 4/1/11 1PT(1/2)

Mt. Vernon 3FT 3FT NO CHANGE 1PT(1/2) 1PT(1/2)

Newburgh 2FT 3FT 1/1/12

New Rochelle 2FT 3FT 4/1/11 1PT(1/2)

Niagara Falls 4FT 4FT NO CHANGE

N. Tonawanda 1FT 1FT NO CHANGE 1PT(1/2) 1PT(1/2)

Norwich 1PT(1/2) 1FT 4/1/11 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/4)

Ogdensburg 1FT 1FT NO CHANGE 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/4)

Olean 1FT 1FT NO CHANGE 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/4)

Oneida 1PT(1/2) 1FT 4/1/11 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/4)

Oneonta 1PT(1/2) 1PT(1/2) NO CHANGE 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/4)

Oswego 1FT 1FT NO CHANGE 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/4)

Peekskill 1FT 1FT NO CHANGE 1PT(1/2) 1PT(1/2)

Plattsburgh 1FT 1FT NO CHANGE 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/4)

Port Jervis 1PT(1/2) 1PT (1/2 4/1/11 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/2)

Poughkeepsie 2FT 2FT NO CHANGE

Rensselaer 1PT(1/2) 1PT(1/2) NO CHANGE 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/4)

Rochester 9FT 9FT NO CHANGE

Rome 1FT 2FT 4/1/11

1PT(1/4)

Rye 1FT 1FT 4/1/11 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/2)

Salamanca 2PT(1/4) 1PT(1/2) 4/1/11 1PT(1/4)

Saratoga 1FT 2FT 4/1/11 Springs 1PT(1/2)

Schenectady 3FT 3FT NO CHANGE

Sherrill 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/4) NO CHANGE

Syracuse 8FT 8FT NO CHANGE

Tonawanda 1FT 1FT NO CHANGE 1PT(1/2) 1PT(1/2)

Troy 1FT 2FT 1/1/12 1PT(3/4) 1PT(3/4)

Utica 3FT 3FT NO CHANGE

Watertown 1FT 1FT NO CHANGE 1PT(1/4) 1PT(1/4)

Watervliet 1PT(1/2) 2PT(1/2) 4/1/11 1PT(1/4)

White Plains 3FT 4FT 4/1/11 1PT(1/2) 1PT(1/2)

Yonkers 6FT 7FT 1/1/12