Relates to the temporary assignment of certain judges to the supreme court

BILL NUMBER:S5174

Title of bill

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY proposing an amendment to article 6 of the constitution, in relation to the temporary assignment of certain judges to the supreme court

This is one in a series of measures being introduced at the request of the Chief Administrative Judge upon the recommendation of her Local Courts Advisory Committee.

This measure would amend the New York State Constitution to authorize the temporary assignment of a judge of the New York City Civil Court or Criminal Court as an acting Supreme Court justice in any judicial district within the New York City.

The Constitution authorizes temporary assignment of a New York City Civil Court or Criminal Court judge to "supreme court in the judicial department of his or her residence." N.Y. Const., Art. VI, § 26(g). The City's boroughs divide among two judicial departments: Kings, Queens and Richmond Counties are in the Second Department, while New York and Bronx Counties comprise the First Department. See N.Y. Const., art. VI, § 4(a). However, both the Civil Court and Criminal Court are courts of "citywide" jurisdiction whose judges may discharge their duties "in any county" of New York City. N.Y. Const., Art. VI, §§ 15(a), 26(g). Indeed, these judges often serve in boroughs other than where they reside.

The problem is that even when a New York City judge may dedicate his or her judicial career to service in one county within New York City, becoming fluent in that county's dockets and administrative dynamics, the Constitution may not allow such judge to serve temporarily in Supreme Court in that county. The Constitution limits a temporary assignment in Supreme Court to the judicial department of a judge's residence, despite the citywide jurisdiction of a New York City judge and the citywide service explicit in such judge's office. Accordingly, a New York City judge residing in the Bronx but serving for many years with distinction in Queens is ineligible for temporary assignment to Supreme Court in Queens County because the East River divides the judge's judicial department of residency (i.e. First Department) from the judge's judicial department where he or she serves (i.e. Second Department).

This restriction makes no practical or juridical sense, and defies the Constitution's own characterization of the New York City Civil Court and Criminal Courts as courts of citywide jurisdiction with citywide powers. Because temporary assignments are an important tool for deploying limited judicial resources to address Supreme Court calendar demands, Civil and Criminal Court judges should be eligible for temporary assignment within the same jurisdiction - that is, "citywide," within New York City - for which they are elected or appointed to serve. While recognizing that temporary assignments to Supreme Court should depend on objective caseloads and judicial needs commensurate with the local administration of justice, this measure would only authorize those temporary assignments consistent with these well-settled objectives - in this case, allowing those very judges, whose experience gives them the fullest understanding of a county's needs, to serve in that county and vindicate those judicial needs.

Legislative history: None. New proposal.

Effective date

§2. RESOLVED (if the Assembly concur), That the foregoing amendment be referred to the first regular legislative session convening after the next succeeding general election of members of the assembly, and, in conformity with section 1 of article 19 of the constitution, be published for 3 months previous to the time of such election.