What's happening
Writing a plain-English summary… Track this bill to get it by email.
Why it matters
Albany, before your first meeting.
Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.
Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.
Who cares
Headline styles
Sponsors
No co-sponsors yet.
History
- Referred to codes
- Referred to codes
Full text
The text isn't available here yet. Check nysenate.gov.
Sponsor's memo
Title of bill
An act to amend the civil practice law and rules and the judiciary law, in relation to jury selection
Purpose
To clarify that the manner of juror selection in civil cases in the Supreme and County Courts shall be conducted in the manner provided by the rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts; to require the Chief Administrator to designate one or more Supervising Judges for Voir Dire for each Judicial District with authority to immediately review orders or determinations in relation to the conduct of jury selection in an action originating in the Supreme court or County court; and to provide a limited right of further review to redress deliberate failure to apply a jury selection method promulgated pursuant to this act.
Summary of provisions
Section 1 would amend section 4106 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) to authorize rather than require discharge of alternate jurors after final submission of the case.
Read the full memo (854 words)
Section 2 would add a new CPLR section 4107-a to clarify that the Rules of the Chief Administrator shall govern the procedures for the conduct of voir dire in civil actions in the Supreme and County Courts.
Section 3 would add a new paragraph (r) to section 212(2) of the Judiciary Law as follows:
1) The Chief Administrator shall designate one or more Supervising Judges for Voir Dire in each Judicial District statewide. Such Supervising Judges shall have the initial authority to review orders or determinations by justices, judges and judicial hearing officers in relation to the conduct of jury selection in civil actions originating in Supreme or County Court.
2) Any party aggrieved by an order or determination by the trial court in relation to voir dire may request immediate review by a Supervising Judge for the Judicial District in which such action arises. Such a Supervising Judge may vacate or modify an order or determination in relation to the conduct of jury selection pursuant to CPLR Article 41 and rules promulgated thereunder by the Chief Administrator. The Supervising Judge shall conduct such review in such form as he or she may determine, including telephone conference, except that there shall not be any ex parte consideration. A record, including a recording of the telephone conference, of such review shall be made at the request of any party. Any resulting order of the Supervising Judge shall be reduced to writing.
3) No judicial proceeding shall be delayed or continued except suspension of voir dire as minimally necessary to allow review of an order or determination in relation to questioning of an individual juror, in which event questioning of such juror shall not continue until the Supervising Judge shall review such order or determination.
4) There shall be no further judicial review of the trial court order or determination during the pendency of the voir dire proceeding before the trial court. This measure would not authorize the Supervising Judge to review any other trial court order or determination.
5) A special proceeding in the appropriate Appellate Division shall lie pursuant to CPLR article 78 to challenge a deliberate failure to apply a method of selection authorized pursuant to CPLR section 4107 -a, as added by this act, only where the Supervising Judge for voir dire fails, after review pursuant to this paragraph, to remedy such deliberate failure.
Existing law
CPLR Article 41 prescribes that a jury in a civil cause of action in Supreme or County Court be comprised of six persons who are approved as indifferent to the parties and not discharged or excused. The Uniform Rules for Trial Court, as promulgated by the Chief Administrator, governs the conduct and method of voir dire, that is, the questioning, challenging and selection of jurors in civil cases. Currently, there exists no procedure for an aggrieved party to get immediate review of an order or determination in relation to the conduct of jury selection in a civil action.
Justification
This bill would clarify that voir dire procedures statewide in civil causes of action in the Supreme or County Courts shall be conducted as set forth in CPLR Article 41 and as set forth in the rules promulgated thereunder by the Chief Administrator. The failure by the trial judge or judicial hearing officer to adhere to the frame- work established by the statute or the rules would give rise to a new right of review by the newly appointed Supervising Judge for Voir Dire for the Judicial District in which the action arises. To promote compliance with such rules, where the trial court and Supervising Judge both deliberately refuse to apply a method of jury selection authorized under such rules, such willful refusal could be challenged by special proceeding in the appropriate Appellate Division.
Legislative history
2008-S.8661/A.11715 - Vetoed
Fiscal implications
None.
Effective date
January 1st next succeeding the date upon which it shall have become law and apply to all actions filed on or after such effective date and to actions pending on such effective date provided no note of issue has yet been filed therein.
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.