Relates to nonpartisan quadrennial review of adequacy of judgeships of the unified court system

Justification

Current law provides no mechanism by which the legislative and executive branches can receive, on a predictable basis, objective assessments of the adequacy and allocation of judgeships in state-paid courts relative to dockets and other incidents of the administration of justice. This gap in the law governing the Judiciary impairs the effective operation of the courts and frustrates efforts to redress calendar congestion that delays proceedings and directly impacts litigants and their families and communities.

Dockets among New York's state-paid courts are nearing five million new filings annually, dwarfing all federal courts combined and most other state judiciaries. Explosive growth in New York dockets, combined with new procedures for many case types, impose mounting burdens on many courts, litigants and allied justice agencies statewide. The limited issue this bill seeks to address is how to measure the judgeship needs, if any, arising from these trends.

On its own initiative over the last several decades, the Judiciary established an informal periodic process to propose adjustments in and among City Courts outside New York City. This process has worked to the benefit of the institutional Judiciary, the legislative and executive branches, the affected courts and the regions they serve - by providing a regular timetable and basis for this inquiry. Under this system, the Legislature receives a periodic assessment, based on dockets and projections in each of the 62 City Courts, as well as qualitative reports on emerging trends. Using these data and the timetable's regularity, OCA makes a comprehensive proposal to the Legislature, which then has full discretion to consider and adjust This process has streamlined what once was a haphazard approach that left some City Courts and their communities without needed resources and others with extra capacity. With benefit of this process, City Courts have evolved commensurate with their duties, with system-wide efficiencies and justice benefits for affected cities, counties and their civil and criminal justice systems. Likewise, the Legislature - while always free to make mid-cycle adjustments - has streamlined a process that otherwise would invite stand alone bills for each of 62 separate courts.

By contrast, for the other eight state-paid trial courts - Supreme Court, Family Court, County Court, Surrogate's Court, Court of Claims, New York City Civil Court, New York City Criminal Court, and District Courts on Long Island - there is no periodic process to measure judgeship needs and propose adjustments. Adjustments in these courts generally remain haphazard in and among the 62 counties of the state, and some courts have grown critically backlogged. For instance, Family Court has not had a judgeship package focused on that essential tribunal's needs since the Court's creation in 1962. As of the date this bill first was proposed, there wasn't a single new Family Court judgeship created in New York City for over 20 years, even though dockets and the burdens of Family Court adjudications have ballooned. Dockets in other courts and venues also have become critically high relative to judgeships.

This bill's purpose is to provide for other state-paid courts the regular, streamlined and objective process on which the Legislature has come to rely for City Courts. This bill would provide the first-ever snapshot of potential judgeship needs for all state-paid courts, as a system, relative to dockets and the administration of justice. As demonstrated above, history shows that absent such a systematic approach, the public and their representatives cannot have full confidence that the administration of justice properly is served in and among the courts of this state.

Accordingly, this measure would amend Judiciary Law section 212 to direct the Office of Court Administration to transmit a quadrennial report on the sufficiency of judgeships in and among the state-paid courts, based on current and projected dockets and other administration-of-justice factors. The amendment would require that such reports be entirely without regard to partisanship and based on objective data, which would be submitted as part of the report to inform the discretion of the Legislature and governor.

Nothing in this bill would intrude on the constitutional prerogatives of the legislative and executive branches, which would retain their discretion in relation to judgeships consistent with Article VI of the Constitution. This bill would, however, create a first-ever process for the legislative and executive branches to examine the judgeship needs of the system as a system, to promote efficiency and targeted response to docket trends. The result would be a tailored approach that allows regular improvements for the benefit of litigants, their families and communities, civil and criminal justice agencies, and the cause of justice itself.

Fiscal implications for state and local governments

None.

Legislative history

None. New bill.

Effective date

This act would take effect immediately.