Why New York Judges are fighting a major plan to fix court backlogs

Yahoo

5 hours ago

— This story first appeared in New York Focus, a non-profit news publication investigating New York state politics. Sign up for their stories at nysfocus.com/ newsletter.
New York's justice system has a major problem with backlogs. People languish at Rikers Island and other jails, waiting for their trials. Civil cases drag on for years.
Yet a proposed fix is facing fierce opposition from a surprising source — state Supreme Court justices, who routinely witness the consequences borne by the backlogs.
In the final days of the Albany legislative session, a constitutional amendment to create an uncapped number of new state Supreme Court justice seats is nearing the finish line. The amendment passed both the Senate and Assembly last year, and if both chambers pass it again before the session's end in June, it will secure a spot on the statewide ballot in 2026, leaving the final decision to voters.
The 'Uncap Justice Act' has broad and powerful support. Its backers include Governor Kathy Hochul, Attorney General Letitia James, leaders of the Office of Court Administration, the city and state bar associations, the Business Council, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and groups representing the rights of criminal defendants.
Politically outgunned
The opposition comes primarily from several associations representing state Supreme Court judges, which acknowledge they are politically outgunned.
Yet some assemblymembers are having second thoughts after listening to counterarguments, according to Frank Caruso, president of the state Association of Justices of the Supreme Court. He called the measure nearing passage 'reckless,' and believes a rival plan is gaining last-minute steam.
The fight pits separate but equal branches of government against each other. It also puts part of upstate at odds with New York City, especially Manhattan, which the amendment's two main sponsors — State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Assemblymember Alex Bores — represent.
To win election, state Supreme Court judges must first be nominated to appear on the ballot by political party insiders, a process that has been criticized for inherent conflicts of interest. After nomination, candidates appear on the general election ballot in one of New York's 13 judicial districts, and if successful, win 14-year terms.
The proposed amendment would make a simple change in the state constitution by removing language that limits each of New York's 13 judicial districts to one Supreme Court justice per 50,000 people. The status quo is based on language adopted in 1846 and last modified in 1963, when, according to Bores, caseloads were a third of today's.
According to Bores, three districts have hit their cap and couldn't add another justice without a huge spike in population: Manhattan, the Bronx, and the Capital Region.
'The dumbest reason why we are so backlogged is that we don't have enough judges,' Bores told New York Focus. 'There is no similar limit in the federal constitution. There is no similar limit in 49 states.'
New York has 11 trial courts, and ten of them have no such limit. The exception is the Supreme Court, which can hear a wide range of both criminal and civil cases.
If the amendment passed, the legislature could place new Supreme Court judges anywhere in the state. Each new judgeship costs the state roughly $1 million annually, according to Bores.
Manhattan shoulders a disproportionate share of litigation, driven by its daily influx of millions of commuters, more than 50 million annual tourists, and concentration of foreign, federal, state and local government institutions, according to the nonprofit Fund for Modern Courts. Its role as a global financial hub also makes it a key venue for complex business disputes.
'An average Manhattan Supreme Court Justice walks into their office every day with 2,500 cases on their docket and 400 motions awaiting their decision,' said Assemblymember Eddie Gibbs, who represents a portion of Manhattan.
There was a distinct Manhattan presence at an Albany press conference last week in support of the proposed amendment, including assemblymembers, a group representing public defenders, and the executive director of the county Democratic Party. There were also assemblymembers from Brooklyn, Westchester, and Albany.
Though case backlogs have grown across the state since the onset of Covid-19, the largest spike occurred in New York City.
Between 2019 and 2024, the number of unresolved cases across New York City courts jumped by 34 percent, according to data from the Office of Court Administration. Pending cases elsewhere in the state increased by 9 percent.
The constitutional limit on Supreme Court justices filters down to the other trial courts. According to the New York City Bar Association, there were 364 elected Supreme Court justices in 2022. In addition, 317 more judges had been 'reassigned' by the state Office of Court Administration to serve as 'acting' Supreme Court justices from other courts.
This maneuver to circumvent the constitutional limit takes away resources from lower courts and forces litigants to appear before judges whom they'll never be able to vote for or against.
'This 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' approach stretches our judicial resources thin,' said Muhammad Faridi, president of the New York City Bar Association. 'It depletes critical resources from other courts that need them the most. It undercuts the right of voters to elect Supreme Court justices.'
Caruso, president of the state Association of Justices of the Supreme Court, said he agreed that the state needs to expand the number of Supreme Court justices and end the system's unacceptable delays.
But he said the Bores proposal threatened to 'undermine the separation of powers' by injecting a political branch of government — the legislature — into the judiciary.
'Our concern is any type of 'horse-trading,' where judges would be sent — or a seat would be sent — from one end of the state to the other,' he said.
The legislature currently has unfettered discretion to create other types of trial court judgeships, and allegations of politicization have arisen in the past.
For instance, in an effort to address case backlogs, the Democratic-controlled legislature added 12 civil court judgeships in New York City last year. The four Democrat-heavy boroughs received three new judges each, while none went to Republican-heavy Staten Island.
While Staten Island Republicans slammed the move, Hoylman-Sigal told the New York Post that judges could be transferred from other boroughs to Staten Island if necessary. But those judges wouldn't have been elected by more conservative Staten Island voters.
Caruso, who is a state Supreme Court justice in Niagara County, expressed concern that 'districts west of Albany would suffer' if the distribution of judgeships were in the hands of a legislature dominated by downstate lawmakers. 'I don't think the focus would be on us and our districts, our constitutional guarantee,' he said.
He acknowledged the severity of backlogs in New York City, but argued that you 'don't want to throw the rest of the state under the bus in order to deal with those backlogs.'
Caruso's statewide advocacy group opposes the proposed amendment, as does an association representing New York City's Supreme Court justices.
Yet there is a split within the five boroughs, with Manhattan's Supreme Court justices supporting the amendment. A group representing 'acting' Supreme Court justices also backs the Uncap Justice Act.
Bores has introduced a companion bill that would require the state's chief administrative judge to make annual recommendations to the legislature concerning the number of judges needed in each court. This chief administrative judge would take population into account, as well as other factors, such as the number of cases filed and their complexity.
Ultimately, Bores's bill would leave decisions about adding judgeships in the hands of the legislature. This companion bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday but hasn't moved through committee in the Assembly.
According to Bores, both Chief Judge Rowan Wilson and Chief Administrative Judge Joseph Zayas support the proposed constitutional amendment. But Caruso believes that removing the cap would place too much power in their Office of Court Administration, which could exert influence upon the legislature's decisions about where to create judgeships.
While Supreme Court justices generally have a favorable view of Wilson, he won't be chief judge forever, Caruso noted. and in the future, 'you could wind up with a dictatorial person that won't listen to anything.'
Instead, Caruso's organization supports a rival proposed constitutional amendment sponsored by Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz of the Bronx and state Senator Leroy Comrie of Queens.
This proposal would retain a population cap in the constitution but allow a justice for every 30,000 people per judicial district, rather than the current cap of 50,000. According to Caruso, this would allow the legislature to create up to 266 additional Supreme Court judgeships while still providing 'guardrails for each district.'
Dinowitz told New York Focus that he tried to come up with a proposal where 'every place around the state could more easily benefit.'
'Some of the backlogs were exacerbated as a result of the pandemic, and so some of that is starting to ease a bit. But nonetheless, there is a need,' Dinowitz said. 'I do think that lowering it to 30,000 will address the problem for the indefinite future.'
'My concern with the other bill — and I'm not saying it's a horrible bill, because it's not — is that everything would go to one place, like Manhattan,' Dinowitz said. 'The way I've proposed it, I think it will guarantee some fairness.'
For a proposed constitutional amendment to go onto the ballot, a measure must pass in two separately elected legislatures. Elections are held every two years, with the next one coming November 2026. So even if the Dinowitz proposal were passed this year or next, it still would require passage again in 2027 or 2028 to go on the ballot.
Because the Uncap Justice Act passed the legislature last year — before 2024 elections — it could pass either this session or next year and still be on the ballot in November 2026. But Bores is pushing for passage this year and is close: The proposed constitutional amendment is poised to be voted on by the full Senate, though it still hasn't passed through the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
Caruso said that last year, the legislature moved so quickly to pass the Uncap Justice Act that his group didn't get a chance to 'lobby the way we wanted to. It kind of came out of nowhere, without any discussion with us.'
While his group still faces an uphill battle, Caruso said that some assemblymembers jumped behind the Uncap Justice Act without hearing counterarguments and have now reconsidered.
'There were some Assembly people that initially supported the Bores bill that, when we talked to them, they said, 'Oh, geez, we didn't realize that,'' he said. 'So now, they switched to the Dinowitz bill.'
The association did lobby the legislature last year, according to Bores. Since then, the Assembly cosponsors have only grown, from 52 to 73. Two members took their names off after being lobbied by the association, but after speaking to Bores, have returned, he said.
The Dinowitz bill currently has seven Assembly cosponsors. Ultimately, Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie will decide which bill, if any, moves to the Assembly floor for a vote.
Facing the rival proposal, Bores believes Uncap Justice is the only proposed means of permanently addressing the crushing backlog.
The constitutional language 'was last changed in the 1960s,' Bores said. 'When it's changed the next time, none of us who are in this conversation will be part of it. So do we want to pass this problem on? Or do we just want to solve it?'