Chief Judge Janet DiFiore wants the State Legislature to approve her plan to consolidate the state’s sprawling court network, which would condense 11 trial courts into 2.
For decades, governors and lawmakers have unsuccessfully tried to overhaul New York’s antiquated and fragmented court system, considered among the most complex to navigate in the country.
A family, for example, might have to appear in State Supreme Court for divorce proceedings, in Family Court for related custody issues and in Criminal Court if domestic violence was involved — appearing before multiple judges in different courts for issues that are all connected.
On Wednesday, Chief Judge Janet DiFiore renewed her push to modernize and simplify the court system, a labyrinth that is laden with backlogs, higher costs for litigants and redundant court appearances, supporters of reforming it say.
Judge DiFiore, who presides over the state’s highest court, announced a plan meant to effectively consolidate most of the state’s 11 trial courts into two: the existing State Supreme Court and a newly created Municipal Court.
“We are compelled to operate one of the largest and busiest court systems in the world under the constraints of what is, without question, the most inefficient, outdated, fragmented and needlessly complex trial court structure in the nation,” Judge DiFiore said during her annual State of the Judiciary address. “We need to streamline and modernize our obsolete trial court structure, but inexplicably reform is never seriously pursued.”
The plan, which is similar to one Judge DiFiore unveiled in 2019, would require a constitutional amendment to be enacted, an uphill climb in the State Legislature. The lengthy process would require lawmakers to pass the bill two years in a row before allowing voters to weigh in on a referendum.
Indeed, previous attempts by chief judges to consolidate the courts have traditionally been obstructed by politics and have faced stiff opposition from some judges concerned about how they would be seated in a new system. They contend that the proposed structure would threaten their judicial independence, and potentially weaken diversity efforts.
The actual process of consolidating the sprawling court system would require the administrative reshuffling of 1,350 state-paid judges and 15,000 court employees, such as clerks and officers, whose unions have previously raised concerns.
Rallying public support around an arcane if consequential judicial matter could also prove difficult.
“It will be a daunting task to accomplish the sort of change that Judge DiFiore would like to see, which is not to say it can’t happen or that some of it won’t happen,” said Assemblyman Charles Lavine, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who is sponsoring a bill containing the chief judge’s proposals. “Some of these courts that are in our unified court system predate the American Revolution.”
Efforts to streamline the courts have been backed by a coalition of bar associations, good government groups, legal service providers, advocates against domestic violence and even top business associations that see the inefficiencies and high costs related to the current court system as a drag on the economy.
“We cannot delay this vitally important initiative if we want to achieve our most cherished ideals — securing public confidence in our judicial system and ensuring access to justice,” T. Andrew Brown, the president of the New York State Bar Association, said in a statement.
These groups argue that the current setup has stretched the judicial system by requiring more than one judge to hear different cases on interrelated matters, leading to more court appearances and a greater backlog of cases.
They say it especially hurts families who have to split their time between different courts, and potentially spend money on different lawyers.
A report by The Committee for Modern Courts, a nonpartisan organization that supports reforms, found that the state could save at least $65 million annually in administrative costs by unifying the courts.
A separate analysis by the Special Commission on the Future of the New York Court found that simplifying the court structure could save litigants $443 million annually by reducing redundant court appearances that lead to higher attorneys’ fees, lost wages and other costs.
Under Judge DiFiore’s proposed changes, the Court of Claims, as well as County, Family and Surrogate’s Courts, would be abolished and the State Supreme Court would absorb their jurisdictions. Those judges would become Supreme Court justices.
Six divisions — family, probate, criminal, state claims, commercial and general — would be created under the new version of the Supreme Court, with a goal of improving coordination and making the system easier to navigate. (Despite its name, the State Supreme Court is not the highest court in New York; it is the Court of Appeals.)
The new Municipal Court would absorb New York City’s civil and criminal courts, the District Courts on Long Island and the 61 upstate city courts. There would be no changes to the town and village courts.
The plan would not alter how judges are selected; some judges in the state are elected, while others are appointed.
But the proposal has received forceful pushback from the associations that represent State Supreme Court justices, who are elected. They have raised concerns about the power that court administrators would have to move judges outside of districts they were elected to serve, arguing that the plan would wrest control from judges and voters.
They have also argued that Judge DiFiore’s approach to overhauling the court would result in a more convoluted system.
“Besides merely replacing the word “court” with the word “division,” the proposal would create more complexity and confusion for voters and litigants, not less,” the associations wrote in testimony submitted to state lawmakers in 2019, adding they favored “a more nuanced approach directed at a discrete problem or inefficiency within the existing system in a targeted and judicious manner.”
In a statement on Wednesday, Justices Barbara R. Kapnick and Mary Ann Brigantti, who lead the associations, argued that the plan “would centralize power over judges and courts in the Office of Court Administration, which would undercut the effectiveness and independence of judges across the state.”
The Legislature, which is controlled by Democrats, held two hearings in November 2019 on Judge DiFiore’s plans to restructure the court system, but the efforts have stalled since then.
State Senator Brad Hoylman, who chairs the Judiciary Committee and introduced the restructuring bill in the Senate, said one of the largest issues to emerge from the hearings was whether the proposal would dilute judicial diversity.
Opponents argue that diversity in the State Supreme Court could be diluted since appointed judges, a group that is sometimes more homogeneous, would become justices of that court. They would also become eligible for appointments to the higher Appellate Division.
“I think my colleagues in both houses think that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to restructure the courts,” said Mr. Hoylman. “How we encourage diversity on the bench, which is a major problem outside of New York City, is top of mind.”
Mr. Hoylman, whose new bill was amended to address concerns about diversity and other issues brought up during hearings, added that court restructuring is “like a half century of hitting one’s head against the wall.”
