The Empire Page

Background: In the aftermath of a study of New York's court system, the Special Commission on the Future of NYS Courts decided to extend their work to what are known as "justice courts" -- the town and village courts where most arraignments and routine actions are initiated and adjudicated.  Conducted without taxpayer monies, the Commission visited nearly 100 justice courts throughout the state.  Serving as Chief Counsel for the Commission was Elliot Moskowitz, an associate in the law firm of Davis Polk & Wardwell.

Q:  What prompted the decision of the Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts to study New York’s Justice Courts?

A: The Commission was originally established by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye in 2006 to study the structure of the New York State Court System – the courts that are funded by New York State.  In the course of our work, we developed concerns about New York State’s “other” court system – the town and village courts, also referred to as the Justice Courts, which actually outnumber those in the state-run system, with more than 1,250 in 57 counties.  These are purely local courts, each funded and operated by its own municipality – not the state – and the judges who sit in them are typically elected by the individual towns or villages in which they sit.  These courts play a crucial role in the lives of millions of people across our state, dispensing justice in millions of cases each year, and collecting over $210 million annually in fines and fees on behalf of state, county and local governments. 

At the same time, these courts have recently become a subject of public scrutiny, with reports of failings and abuses by a number of justices – who are not required to have a law degree – over a period of years.  Given this public attention and our own concerns, it was only natural that the Commission turn its attention to the Justice Courts after completing its work on the state-funded court system.  Our Commission’s chair, Carey R. Dunne, requested that the term of the Commission be extended to conduct an intensive review of the Justice Courts, and the Chief Judge readily agreed.

In September 2008, the Commission issued a nearly-300 page report (click to download) detailing its findings and proposed reforms for the Justice Courts.

Q:  The Commission’s report on the Justice Courts issued this past September states “we believe that immediate action must be taken to cure serious inefficiencies in the organization of the [Justice] courts.”  Please summarize the “inefficiencies” that you found.

A: The current organization of the Justice Courts is difficult to defend.  The array of Justice Courts has grown on an ad hoc basis over hundreds of years, with few or no questions raised along the way as to what the caseload of any particular court should look like; whether a town or village can or does provide adequate resources to support a court; whether a court might be unnecessarily proximate to a neighboring facility; whether a proliferation of courts in a particular area might have an undue impact on law enforcement agencies or other state and county resources; and other similar issues.  As a result, some 1,277 Justice Courts are sprawled around the state, with many counties supporting a glut of courts, many of which sit in overlapping jurisdictions, and some of which coexist in a single building or in redundant facilities across the street.

While, in an earlier era when travel was more difficult and car ownership rare, there may have been a need for a court in every locality, the continued maintenance of multiple courts located short distances from one another makes no sense today.  This is particularly true where the courts in question are underfunded by their respective localities and unable to provide adequate facilities and adequate justice for the litigants who use them.  Indeed, in some parts of our state, Justice Courts are housed in facilities that are wholly unsafe and unfit for judicial proceedings, such as town garages and barns.

Q:  What cost New York is paying today under the current system of Justice Courts – both in terms of the service of justice and financially to the taxpayer?

A:  There are serious economic and quality-of-justice consequences to this vast array of courts.  At the local level, it often makes little sense for there to be two or more courts operating a few miles or even blocks from one another, as the overlap in services can be wasteful for the taxpayers in each of the localities that fund the courts.  In addition, such duplication may require the county and state to provide redundant services to each of the courts.  This can cause serious drains on state and county law-enforcement agencies that must transport prisoners to far-flung courts; district attorney and public defender offices that must staff dozens of courts with competing schedules in a single county; and probation agencies and other service organizations that must provide costly coverage in multiple forums, all to accommodate the desires of municipalities across the state to maintain hundreds of individual courts.  For these reasons, our report concluded that the overabundance of Justice Courts creates enormous burdens on taxpayer-funded resources at the local, county and state levels.

By contrast, if there were fewer Justice Courts, the state could provide more targeted and meaningful support to upgrade the facilities and security of the courts that remain.  Likewise, it would be more feasible to provide higher judicial salaries to the remaining courts, which could in turn impel more qualified candidates to seek office.  Finally, state assistance to and oversight of the Justice Court system could be achieved more practicably and effectively in a system less fragmented than the current jumble of more than 1,250 courts.

Beyond the economic impact, this drain on resources adversely affects the quality of justice that is delivered in the Justice Courts.  When there are too many local courts for district attorneys to staff, proceedings take place without a prosecutor present.  When public defenders cannot appear, cases are delayed for weeks or months.  When necessary support services are unavailable – such as programs for domestic violence and drug treatment – law enforcement goals are frustrated.  More generally, the funds that are wasted on duplicative courts diminish the amounts available to make critical improvements to court facilities.

Q:  What would the financial impact be if the recommendations were enacted?

A: Our reform proposal calls for the creation of local review panels to assess which courts in each county should be combined with others.  Because we do not know the number of courts that will remain after this consolidation plan is completed, it is not possible to forecast now the precise amount of savings that would result.  It stands to reason, however, that the state, localities and taxpayers would realize substantial savings if our recommendations were enacted.  If there were fewer Justice Courts, localities would be able to pool their resources more efficiently to better support the courts that remain after consolidation, and the burden on state, county and local services would be greatly diminished.  Just to take one example, currently, counties spend great sums transporting prisoners back and forth from the county jail to Justice Courts all over a county.  If there were fewer Justice Courts within the county, these costs would be far lower.  This is but one example of the kinds of costs that can be more efficiently managed in a more rational organization of the Justice Court system.   

Q:  What were the main arguments you heard during your investigation against consolidating the current number of courts?

A: Supporters of the current system emphasize the convenience of town and village courts, especially in rural regions.  They suggest that, without these courts, litigants in all manner of cases would have to travel in many instances dozens of miles or more to gain access to an available court.

Many point in particular to the role that town and village justices play in handling arraignments.  The absence of holding cells across many counties around the state means that arrestees have to be brought before a town or village justice and arraigned – often in the middle of the night, or on weekends or holidays – before they can be lodged in a county detention facility or released either on bail or on their own recognizance.  Supporters argue that, absent a Justice Court system, arrestees would have to spend additional time in custody waiting for a state-paid court to convene a bail hearing, and a system of holding cells would have to be constructed and staffed in state and county offices, at great cost to taxpayers at the state and county level.  This step, in turn, would divert state and local police patrols to transporting defendants to county seats, thus either reducing police coverage or forcing new hires that tight budgets cannot easily afford.

We considered all of these concerns very carefully.  In fact, it is for reasons such as these that we did not recommend the abandonment of the current system in favor of a system of state-run, non-local “District Courts.”  That said, we believe that our proposal strikes the appropriate balance between preserving the best attributes of the current system while offering improvements that are critically needed.

Q:  What if anything has happened with regard to the Commission’s recommendations since September.

A:  We released our report in September at a press conference in Albany and there was much press attention at the time, including very positive reactions from virtually all corners.  Since then, the attention of our state’s leaders has quite appropriately been focused on the unprecedented financial crisis affecting our nation.  We are hopeful that over time, the recommendations we have proposed can be carefully studied and implemented.

Q: Do all of the recommendations require authorizing legislation?   Has legislation be drafted?  Has it been submitted to the State Legislature?

A:  Some, but not all, of our proposals would require authorizing legislation.  Our report includes a complete draft bill that would implement our entire plan.  This draft bill offers the State Legislature an important head start so that legislation need not be drafted from scratch.  We hope that this will lead to quicker passage of legislation making our proposals a reality.

Q: Who paid for the Commission’s study of the Justice Courts and how much did it cost?

A: The costs associated with the Commission’s study of the Justice Courts were largely borne by the law firm of Davis Polk & Wardwell, where I am an associate.  Davis Polk devoted more than a dozen lawyers and staff to work on the project, completely on a pro bono basis, and incurred substantial travel costs as we crisscrossed the state reviewing the Justice Courts.  The Firm also paid for the printing of our nearly 300-page report.  In addition, all of the Commissioners devoted their time on a pro bono basis.