Public Hearing for Court of Appeals Nominee Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam

1 BEFORE THE NEW YORK STATE SENATE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY 2 ------------------------------------------------------ 3 PUBLIC HEARING 4 FOR COURT OF APPEALS NOMINEE

JUDGE SHEILA ABDUS-SALAAM 5

------------------------------------------------------ 6

New York State Capitol Building 7 172 State Street, Room 124 CAP

Albany, New York 12247 8

April 30, 2013 9 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 10

PRESIDING:11

Senator John J. Bonacic 12 Chair 13 14 SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT: 15 Senator John L. Sampson (RM) 16 Senator Neil D. Breslin 17 Senator John A. DeFrancisco 18 Senator Martin Malavé Dilan 19 Senator Adriano Espaillat 20 Senator John J. Flanagan 21 Senator Charles J. Fuschillo 22 Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson 23 Senator Brad Hoylman 24 Senator Andrew J. Lanza 25 Senator Kenneth P. LaValle 1 SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT (Continued): 2

Senator Betty Little 3

Senator Michael F. Nozzolio 4

Senator Thomas F. O'Mara 5

Senator Bill Perkins 6

Senator Diane J. Savino 7

Senator Toby Stavisky 8 9 10 ---oOo--- 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1

SPEAKERS:PAGE QUESTIONS 2

Michael Hutter 6 3 Professor

Albany Law School 4

Michael Jaffe 23 5 President

NYS Trial Lawyers Association 6 7 ---oOo--- 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 SENATOR BONACIC: First of all, good morning. 2 Today is April 30, 2013. 3 I'm Senator Bonacic. I chair the Senate 4 Judiciary Committee meeting. 5 The business of the day will be, this now 6 will be a public hearing, to hear from witnesses on 7 the Governor's nominee to the Court of Appeals. 8 The -- I would like to acknowledge my ranking 9 member, Senator John Sampson. 10 Today we're going to have two witnesses that 11 will provide oral testimony about 12 Judge Abdus-Salaam's qualifications. 13 The witnesses will be: 14 Professor Michael Hutter, who is an Albany 15 Law School professor, and a practicing attorney; 16 And also, Michael Jaffe, who's president of 17 the New York State Trial Lawyers Association. 18 We're going to ask each witness to limit 19 their testimony to ten minutes. 20 On Thursday, April 25th, I had issued a 21 Judiciary report to our members. 22 I think the Governor has nominated a very 23 experienced, well-rounded judicial nominee for our 24 highest bench. 25 As you will hear today, in her career, she 1 is, both, a practicing attorney, and she has served 2 as judge of the Supreme Court, and an appellate 3 [unintelligible] judge for the First Department. 4 She has engaged in legal analysis on areas 5 of law, including, but not limited, to 6 corporations, contracts, criminal, real estate, 7 personal injury, landlord-tenant, 8 estate surrogates, banking, civil rights, health, 9 labor, evidence. 10 And, in reviewing her background, I think 11 she's made rulings on 211 cases. 12 So, I would now like to invite 13 Senator Sampson to address the Committee. 14 SENATOR SAMPSON: Thank you very much, 15 Chairman Bonacic, and to my colleagues, and also to 16 our -- everyone who's attending. 17 The only thing I can say is, this judge has 18 impeccable credentials, impeccable qualifications, 19 impeccable experience, and this judge is what I call 20 "a complete jurist." 21 And I look forward to hearing from those, but 22 also look forward to hearing from her, in this 23 public-hearing process, and, look forward to the 24 questions from my colleagues, because I think, 25 without question, this is one of the best 1 selections the Governor has made to the Court of 2 Appeals. 3 So, thank you very much, Chairman. 4 SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you, Senator Sampson. 5 I would ask Mr. Hutter to please come up. 6 And while he's coming up, I would like to 7 acknowledge the members of the Judiciary Committee 8 that are here: 9 Senator Perkins, Senator O'Mara, 10 Senator LaValle, Senator Breslin, Senator Lanza, 11 Senator Fuschillo, Senator Savino, 12 Senator DeFrancisco, Senator Nozzolio, 13 Senator Sampson, Senator Hoylman, Senator Little, 14 Senator Flanagan, Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson, 15 Senator Dilan, Senator Espaillat, and last, but not 16 least, Senator Toby Stavisky. 17 SENATOR STAVISKY: Just because I'm not a 18 lawyer, you don't have to put me as "last." 19 [Laughter.] 20 SENATOR BONACIC: Mr. Hutter, first of all, 21 good morning. 22 MICHAEL HUTTER: Good morning, sir, 23 Mr. Chairman. 24 SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you for being here. 25 Please tell us a little bit about, who you 1 are, your background, and your experience, and, how 2 do you know this nominee. 3 MICHAEL HUTTER: I'm presently a professor of 4 law at the Albany Law School. I've been there since 5 1976. 6 I also maintain a private practice, 7 specializing in appeals. I've been doing that now 8 for over 40 years. 9 My background, with respect to getting into 10 appellate work, is I, as a law clerk for 11 Judge Matthew Jasen, the Court of Appeals, 12 1970 to 1972. 13 And, I've argued over 35 cases before the 14 court, not only representing clients, but also 15 submitting amicus briefs on various issues 16 involving state government, legislative 17 prerogatives, and the like. 18 I have also -- and this is my way of 19 introduction to Judge Abdus-Salaam's judging, is I 20 also provide updates for the judges on civil 21 evidence, criminal-law matters, various topics, 22 that the judges need to know, on an annual basis, 23 at the judges' school, and also through the 24 Judicial Institute. 25 And through that, I became aware of 1 Judge Abdus-Salaam's writings. 2 And prior to her even being nominated, I was 3 commenting very favorably on her abilities as a 4 judge, and her demonstrated excellence in her 5 opinion writing. 6 And it's on the basis of that, that I would 7 offer my testimony today, Senator. 8 SENATOR BONACIC: Okay, thank you, 9 Mr. Hutter. 10 You yourself have been practicing law, how 11 long? 12 MICHAEL HUTTER: Pardon me? 13 SENATOR BONACIC: How long you have been 14 practicing law? 15 MICHAEL HUTTER: Since 1972, after the end of 16 my clerkship. 17 SENATOR BONACIC: So you wear two hats: 18 You're a professor, and you get out in the trenches 19 and you practice law? 20 MICHAEL HUTTER: Yes. And I've argued in 21 that respect, about 35 cases in the Court of 22 Appeals. 23 Overall, about 350 appeals since 1972 in 24 all of New York's appellate courts. 25 SENATOR BONACIC: Okay. 1 All right, does anyone have any questions of 2 Mr. Hutter? 3 Senator Sampson. 4 SENATOR SAMPSON: Professor Hutter, I just 5 want to thank you for my "A" in Evidence you gave me 6 when I was in law school. 7 [Laughter.] 8 MICHAEL HUTTER: It was well deserved, 9 Senator. 10 [Laughter.] 11 MICHAEL HUTTER: I was going to -- after I 12 had a chance, I was going to acknowledge your 13 presence here as a former student. 14 I'm very honored to be here with you. 15 SENATOR BONACIC: Do you have some remarks 16 that you would like to make? 17 MICHAEL HUTTER: Ah, yes, if I may, a couple 18 of things. 19 I think both Senators Sampson and Bonacic 20 have talked about the basic background. 21 Let me make a couple of comments about her 22 judging, and I'll reference a couple of cases that 23 she talked about. 24 In looking at it, I think there are five 25 major characteristics of her decisions, on a 1 consistent basis, whether it is dissenting or in the 2 majority. 3 First, it is a very accurate characterization 4 of the facts, in the sense that, she goes through 5 the brief, she goes through the records, isolates 6 what's important, and then ignores what's really 7 ridiculous. 8 I can say that because, in commenting and 9 writing on her decisions, to get into the full 10 flavor, I have looked at the briefs, and I've seen 11 no situations where she's mischaracterizing facts. 12 So, she's putting cases in a proper context. 13 Secondly, it is clearly a fidelity to the 14 law. 15 In that respect, clearly, there's no tortured 16 reasoning, or trying to pick apart precedent that 17 she may not like, or it may be interfering with a 18 possible goal. 19 There's none of that. 20 I think, also, it's very important for this 21 body to realize as well, is that, in interpreting 22 statutes, she is very faithful to legislative 23 history, and legislative intent. 24 Consistently, she's looking at, "What did the 25 Legislature intend?" and trying to effectuate that. 1 There's no instances where she tried to 2 frustrate a legislative goal because she may 3 disagree with it. There's no indication of that 4 whatsoever. 5 She really, again, has had fidelity to the 6 law. 7 Third, in that regard, stare decisis, she's 8 using as a guide, but she's not bound by it, in the 9 sense that it's something that can be, you must 10 always adhere it to. 11 Now, stare decisis, clearly, is a very 12 important doctrine, where we recognize precedent. 13 We just don't simply change because we are changing 14 views, but it's a guide to certainty, to make sure 15 that we have legitimacy; that we're not just making 16 ad hoc decisions. 17 But the way she uses it, and I'll point out 18 two cases in a minute, certainty is certainly a 19 means to an end, but it's not an end of itself. 20 And the end itself, of course, is justice. 21 And I think, in that respect, where she has 22 seen a bad decision from her own court several 23 years earlier, or 20 years earlier, she's ready 24 now to -- now if -- "We can't follow it anymore, and 25 here are the reasons why." 1 And that leads to the fourth the thing: 2 There's an exceptional clarity and thoroughness to 3 her writings. 4 In that respect, it's not simply a plaintiff 5 wins, or, I disagree, or, this case is binding; 6 rather, you see her consistently, breaking down, 7 taking the arguments as raised in the brief, and 8 going through them, and then rejecting them or 9 accepting them. 10 There's no ipse dixit statements. It's 11 consistent. The thoroughness is amazing. 12 And it's something that I learned from 13 Matt Jasen, when I clerked with him, is the ideas, 14 that you're writing a decision for the bar and the 15 bench, and you want to provide guidance. Make 16 yourself clear, and make sure that everyone knows 17 what the holding is. 18 I mean, when you read a Judge Abdus-Salaam 19 decision, you know what holding is. 20 And in that regard, she's hitting the issue 21 that's raised. There's no hidden agenda in trying 22 to suggest alternatives or future issues. She's 23 right on the money. 24 And then, lastly, I think here, in doing 25 that, she's also, where, clearly, the consequences 1 of decisions, in the sense that, she'll look at it: 2 If I go this way, as defendant is arguing, or 3 plaintiff is arguing, that, here are the problems. 4 But, we don't have those problems that way. 5 And she shows, really, and I think this is 6 the basis of her substantial record of achievement 7 at the bar, and then on the appellate court, and the 8 trial court, she's aware of the practical 9 consequences of her decision, and she's ever mindful 10 of that. 11 I think, here, she's got a terrific 12 background that serves her well as a judge in 13 getting across these views. 14 Now -- and I say "these views," again, the 15 view, only thing that I could see is fidelity to the 16 law. I saw no indication that she has a distinctive 17 philosophy: this is what she wants to achieve, or 18 anything like that. 19 She's following what the Legislature wants, 20 and she's following what the courts want. 21 And I think in that respect, clearly, the 22 idea of legitimacy with courts, is that's what you 23 want with judges. 24 I think, here, there's a sense then, when you 25 appear before Judge Abdus-Salaam, you got a fair 1 shake. You have the law given to you. You have the 2 arguments thrown out, analyzed, and thoroughly 3 discussed. 4 And I think, here, if I were on a losing 5 side, I know -- I think I'd say: You know what? I 6 should have lost. 7 I mean, that's how thorough her analysis is. 8 And I think it's interesting in that respect, 9 when you look at a couple of her decisions. 10 And the one decision I'll mention, this is 11 the Beach [ph.] case, with respect to: What happens 12 when a lawyer, in preparing a witness, gives that 13 witness -- for a deposition, gives that witness 14 privileged documents? 15 Now, the law in that regard had been kind of 16 cloudy. There was a very distinct First Department 17 decision that was creating a lot of problems. 18 She went right into it, and she said: Here's 19 what the problem is. 20 And she corrected it; she said: We're not 21 going to follow that decision, and this is why. 22 And in doing so, she laid forth some very 23 clear rulings regarding the use of privileged 24 documents, with respect to prepping witnesses, 25 which is extremely important for the practicing bar. 1 Now, there's a temptation that maybe she 2 should have talked about what will happen at trial 3 if you give a witness. But, that wasn't the issue. 4 And she simply limited herself to what the 5 issue is. No suggestions here, or dropping 6 hints, and maybe a different result later on. 7 She's right on the money. 8 A second case that has been favorably 9 discussed on the bar, is her decision in 10 Martin versus Portech, the use of electronic 11 signatures to sign an affirmation by a physician, 12 under CPLR 2306. 13 CPLR 20306 [sic], of course, allows lawyers, 14 physicians, osteopaths, dentists, podiatrists, to 15 provide affirmations in lieu of an affidavit. 16 Well, this legislature, it passed the state 17 technology law, Section 304, which said: Electronic 18 signatures will have the full force of a written 19 signature. 20 And the question now is: Does that now apply 21 equally to affirmations? 22 It would apply to contracts, it would apply 23 to other writings; but what about affirmations? 24 Is there anything magic? 25 The Second Department had said: Well, it's 1 different. There's got to be -- affirmations are 2 not good. 3 And so what Judge Abdus-Salaam looked at, 4 well, she looked at 2306 of the CPLR. It made no 5 exception for affirmations with respect to 6 electronic signatures. Nothing there. 7 It just said, "writings." 8 And then she looked at the language of 304; 9 the legislative intent was to allow, in all 10 instances, electronic signatures to be a full 11 substitute for signatures, why not? 12 Now, interestingly, there's some discussion 13 regarding, well, she may have not clarified. 14 What about affidavits? How do you do 15 electronic signatures with an affidavit where you 16 have the notary? 17 And that's an interesting issue, but it was 18 not presented. 19 And, so, to somehow criticize her for maybe 20 not getting into an area that was not addressed by 21 the brief, is really absurd. 22 I mean, she limited herself to a clear 23 decision, pointed out. She respectfully dissented 24 from the view of the Second Department. Gave it, 25 certainly, the respect that it's due, and then 1 pointed out its shortcomings. 2 And not just simply, I disagree, but here are 3 the reasons why I disagree. 4 So in that respect, if I'm a 5 Second Department judge, I think I'd look at this, 6 and say: You know what? Maybe we did get it wrong. 7 Now, hopefully, that case will go up one 8 point, to the Court of Appeals, but we just don't 9 know. 10 The other thing is that, with her dissents, 11 and I picked out two dissents of recent value 12 here, that I think to this Committee: 13 In the matter of New York County Lawyers 14 versus Bloomberg, issue came up with respect to the 15 adequacy of the assigned counsel plan in New York 16 City: 17 When there's a conflict among the primary 18 legal-aid bureau, who is going to then provide 19 counsel when there's a conflict, and legal aid was 20 already representing one of the defendants in the 21 matter, or a witness? 22 And the City of New York had changed its 23 rules, and now allowed, kind of, private legal-aid 24 bureaus, instead of going with 25 county-representation plans, and other things. 1 The judge, Jim Yates, the present counsel 2 to Assemblyman Silver, wrote a very good decision, a 3 Supreme Court, very thoughtful. 4 The majority of the Appellate Division 5 basically agreed with that. 6 Again, in a very thoughtful decision, 7 Judge Abdus-Salaam dissented. 8 And when you read her dissent, what she did 9 is, she went through all of the assigned counsel 10 plans, pointed out the -- what they were trying to 11 do, and then went to the Legislature with Section, I 12 think, 722 of the County law, indicating, this is 13 what the Legislature wanted. 14 And she disagreed with the majority, 15 disagreed with Judge Yates, and pointed out: This 16 is clear in the Legislature. 17 Now, the Court of Appeals disagreed, the 18 majority, but she drew an interesting combination of 19 people who agree with her view: 20 Chief Judge Lippman, Judge Pickett, and 21 Judge Smith. 22 I don't think that we've ever seen those 23 three agree on a dissenting opinion together, but I 24 think that's the type of thought that she will 25 develop. 1 Lastly, I mentioned here, there's another 2 decision of hers that just came down recently, the 3 first -- the Court of Appeals. This is the Lewis 4 decision; an interesting decision with respect to a 5 personal-injury action, in the context of a false 6 arrest. 7 A person is accused now of stealing laptops 8 and selling them. A jury verdict in favor of the 9 plaintiff, finding there was no probable cause for 10 the City -- New York City police to make the arrest. 11 She dissented, and, along with 12 Judge Friedman. 13 And you can see, I think, a lot of her work 14 in it. 15 Although she was not the author of the 16 decision, based upon other things in her background, 17 it's clear that she worked on this decision closely 18 with Judge Friedman, and pointed out some of the 19 problems with probable cause in the neighborhood, 20 indicating, that, Hey, I think, here, the police did 21 have probable cause, based upon all this. 22 A very sensible approach of the evidence. 23 And, low and behold, the Court of Appeals, 24 just two months ago, reversed, on the basis of 25 that dissenting opinion. 1 So in that respect, again, I think, here, 2 when you grab hold of a Judge Abdus-Salaam decision, 3 it is a very thoughtful one. 4 I think, certainly, if I'm a lawyer going up 5 to a higher court, or any court, and I have an 6 Abdus-Salaam decision, to follow, I would -- I would 7 be very happy. 8 And if I could add one last thing: 9 I think, here, as well, and I told this story 10 to Senator Bonacic, and, I mentioned it to 11 Judge Abdus-Salaam, and she laughed a little bit: 12 Last summer, I had the privilege of 13 addressing the Association of Supreme Court 14 Judges' Conference in Saratoga, talking about 15 recent decisions. 16 And, the association is a raucous crowd. 17 They're very opinionated, and they have their own 18 views. 19 You put 100 of those judges in one room, 20 you'll get 110 opinions. They all have their own 21 different views on it. 22 And I talked about this recent decision, the 23 Beach decision, and I said: This is a very 24 thoughtful decision by Judge Abdus-Salaam. You've 25 got to follow it; she laid it out, and, it should be 1 very clear, and in a very important area. 2 Now, I have a reputation, in talking at 3 these, I'm very candid. 4 If a decision stinks, I'll say it. 5 If a decision is wrong, or there are 6 problems, I'll say it. 7 So a voice in the back shouts out, "What do 8 you really think of it?" 9 And I said: This is a setup. What's going 10 on? 11 And I said: Well, what I really think, it's 12 a terrific decision. 13 And all of a sudden, there was full applause. 14 Everyone was applauding. 15 And then I found out later, 16 Judge Abdus-Salaam was in the audience. 17 [Laughter.] 18 MICHAEL HUTTER: And I thought that 19 indicates, clearly, that she has the respect of 20 her peers. 21 So I think, here, that the Governor has made 22 an excellent choice. 23 This Committee, obviously, has the right now 24 to look into that. You have that responsibility. 25 By discussions with your staff, it's clear 1 that you're taking this responsibility very 2 seriously; not just accepting empty assurances of 3 this candidate as the best thing since sliced bread, 4 or whatever, but looking at the record. 5 And I would clearly support this nomination. 6 I think when you look at the record, you have 7 a person of substantial achievement at the bar, 8 substantial achievement as a judge. 9 And I think the only limitation that would be 10 here, is we're only going to have her, maybe, for 11 ten years. 12 I'd like to have her for a lot longer than 13 that on this court. 14 I think she's a superb choice. 15 I think the Governor should be applauded for 16 this choice. 17 And, I would urge this Committee to look at 18 this very favorably: her candidacy. 19 SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you, Professor. 20 Anybody have any questions of 21 Professor Hutter? 22 Well, I was very impressed with the depth of 23 your analysis. 24 I thank you for taking the time, and sharing 25 your views with us. It's very insightful. 1 Thank you. 2 MICHAEL HUTTER: Thank you for the 3 opportunity, Senator. 4 SENATOR BONACIC: Okay. Our next, and final 5 witness, is Michael Jaffe, president of the New York 6 State Trial Lawyers Association. 7 Michael? 8 MICHAEL JAFFE: Good morning, Senator. 9 SENATOR BONACIC: Michael, I think you have 10 some prepared remarks you'd like to share with us on 11 behalf of the New York State Trial Lawyers 12 Association? 13 MICHAEL JAFFE: Yes, Senator. Thank you. 14 And I would start off by saying: Thank you, 15 Chairman Bonacic, and thank you to the Committee, 16 for having us here this morning. 17 I must agree with everything that 18 Professor Hutter said, and he said it, well, better 19 than I could possible state it. 20 I think the choice of Justice Abdus-Salaam 21 for the Court of Appeals is a wonderful decision 22 and wonderful choice that the Governor has made. 23 I am the president of the New York State 24 Trial Lawyers Association. 25 I appear here today on behalf of the NYSTLA 1 board of directors, and our, roughly, 2 3,500 attorney members who practice in trial, and 3 appellate courts, throughout the state. 4 I do thank the Committee, and 5 Chairman Bonacic, for inviting us to participate 6 today, and for the opportunity to speak in support 7 of Governor Cuomo's nomination of 8 Justice Sheila Abdus-Salaam for associate judge of 9 the New York State Court of Appeals. 10 I take the approach today from a personal 11 standpoint than from the standpoint of the New York 12 State Trial Lawyers' approach to the evaluation 13 process, and based on my own personal interactions 14 with Justice Abdus-Salaam at the trial-court level. 15 For 60 years, NYSTLA has fought to protect 16 equal access to the civil justice system for all 17 New Yorkers. 18 The constitutional right to a trial by jury 19 is the foundation of that equal access, and NYSTLA 20 vigorously opposes any compromise of this critical 21 right, whether by legislation, or through the overly 22 aggressive application of judicial doctrines and 23 procedures, that can deny a worthy litigant their 24 day in court. 25 The appointment of a new judge to the 1 Court of Appeals is, therefore, always of great 2 significance to the New York State Trial Lawyers 3 Association. 4 The legal rights of the hundreds of 5 thousands of ordinary New Yorkers NYSTLA members 6 represent depend on judicial restraint and careful 7 application of the law by each member of the court. 8 We applaud judges who demonstrate a 9 preference for allowing cases to be presented to the 10 jury, and who apply great caution in the use of 11 summary judgment, and doctrines, such as 12 collateral estoppel, that can sometimes prevent jury 13 decisions from being made on the merits. 14 NYSTLA's Judiciary Committee had the honor of 15 interviewing all seven candidates recommended by the 16 New York State Commission on Judicial Nomination, to 17 fill the vacancy created by the passing of 18 Associate Judge Theodore T. Jones. 19 Among such an impressively credentialed 20 panel of candidates, Justice Abdus-Salaam stood out, 21 both, for her judicial experience, as well as for 22 her demonstrated commitment to a just and accessible 23 legal system for all New Yorkers. 24 Justice Abdus-Salaam is a calm, careful, and 25 scholarly jurist, whose reputation for fairness 1 rightly precedes her. 2 The committee rated Justice Abdus-Salaam as 3 highly qualified, and highly recommended. 4 She is widely respected for her two decades 5 of judicial experience. 6 Serving first as a civil court judge, she 7 quickly advanced to the Supreme Court, before being 8 appointed to the Appellate Division, 9 First Department. 10 Many NYSTLA members have had the honor of 11 appearing before Justice Abdus-Salaam, whether at 12 trial or on appeal. 13 While we do not always agree with her 14 rulings, members of the plaintiffs' bar, indeed, 15 all who appear before Justice Abdus-Salaam, 16 recognize that they are given an unbiased and fair 17 hearing, and that their legal arguments receive 18 close attention by one of our state's most learned 19 judges. 20 I personally have had the opportunity to 21 appear before Justice Abdus-Salaam on multiple 22 occasions at the trial-court level, having gone into 23 practice, roughly, 20 years ago. 24 To say that she shows an understanding and 25 a compassion for those who come before her, while 1 also applying the law as it must be applied, would 2 be an understatement as to her qualities and her 3 credentials for the bench. 4 In my experience, that rang most true in my 5 mind, in thinking about it. 6 I had a medical malpractice case before her. 7 It was the death of a child, and I was representing 8 the parents of that child. And I had to appear 9 before Justice Abdus-Salaam, with the parents of 10 that child, in order to have a conference on the 11 merits, and it was a complicated and difficult case. 12 I left there -- I won't get into the outcome 13 of the case, but I left there, with my client; my 14 client having an absolute sense of having had the 15 full and fair opportunity to present herself to the 16 court, to have her case evaluated fairly, justly. 17 Whatever the outcome may have been, it was 18 quite clear that what needed to be done under the 19 law, based on the facts as the law must be applied 20 to them, was being done exactly correctly by 21 Justice Abdus-Salaam. 22 I believe she has carried herself in that way 23 throughout her entire career on the bench, and I 24 believe she will continue to do so. 25 I don't want to take a whole lot of the 1 Committee's time. I know you've got a lot of work 2 to do. 3 So, in conclusion, I will state: 4 NYSTLA commends Governor Cuomo for his 5 nomination of Justice Abdus-Salaam. 6 We welcome her open-minded approach to the 7 law. We look forward to Justice Abdus-Salaam 8 applying her well-deserved reputation for fairness 9 to the court, and the manner in which they address 10 the most important legal questions of the day. 11 And I thank you again for the opportunity to 12 testify here today. 13 SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you, Mr. Jaffe. 14 That concludes with our witnesses. 15 Does any member of the Committee like to make 16 any remarks before we close the public hearing? 17 I'm not hearing any. 18 Just let me state for the record, that the 19 New York State Bar Association, the New York City 20 Bar Association, have both rated Judge Salaam [sic] 21 as highly qualified. 22 In addition, we've received some written 23 documentation, all in support of this judge. 24 So, at this point, we're going to call a 25 five-minute recess. We're going to end the public 1 hearing. 2 It is now twenty-five to twelve, and we'll 3 resume in five minutes, the Judiciary Committee 4 meeting, in which we'll bring the judge in, and 5 we'll have an opportunity to hear from her, and ask 6 her questions. 7 Thank you very much. 8 (End of proceeding.) 9 (The nominee interview was held behind closed 10 doors; no transcript required.) 11 12 (Whereupon, at approximately 11:26 a.m., 13 the public hearing held before the New York State 14 Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary concluded.) 15 16 ---oOo--- 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25