| A Brief History of
the
New York State Supreme Court
In 1991 we celebrated the 300th anniversary of the New York
State Supreme Court. That's 600 years younger than Methuselah,
and 254 years older than Paul McCartney, just to put things
into perspective.
Recently on the occasion of this important milestone in the
Court's history, Attorney General Robert W. Abrams said, "From
its earliest days the New York Supreme Court has sought to vindicate
the rights of its citizens."1 Now we join the Chief Legal
Officer of the State of New York in observing "the tricentennial
of this august tribunal and its distinguished history of dispensing
fair and impartial justice."2 Half a century ago on its
two hundred and fiftieth anniversary President Franklin D. Roosevelt
wrote that this Court set an example of "the ideals of
an even-handed administration of justice... where dictation
of judicial decisions by the head of a community, or a state,
or a nation, was unthinkable."3 Today's as in Roosevelt's
time such ideals cannot be taken for granted. In seeking to
learn of the function and background of the Supreme Court we
become more aware of the value of courts in preserving our democracy.
Despite three centuries of change the Supreme Court is now as
it has been since its origins the major trial court of the State
(see illustration #1). For instance in 1989 there were 308,288
new civil proceedings and 79,025 new criminal actions initiated
in the Supreme Court throughout the twelve judicial districts
in the State.
It is in the Supreme Court that many of the most dramatic problems
of our society are presented. There are instances of child and
sex abuse, racial discrimination, AIDS and abortion matters,
and crimes of domestic violence. After incidents of racial violence,
newspapers and electronic media made the Howard Beach and Bensonhurst
murder trials familiar throughout the nation.
Typically, although less sensationally, the Court's daily case
load includes disputes over contracts, negligence, divorces
and foreclosures; in criminal cases the charge must be a felony,
a crime which demands a penalty of at least one year in prison.
For first time offenders, between sixteen and nineteen years
old, the Court may at the time of sentence grant Youthful Offender
status. This means the record is made clean and they can truthfully
say they have never been convicted of a crime.
In civil cases a court acts as an independent third party to
a dispute and its decisions are divided into two categories:
questions of fact and questions of law. Questions of fact are
decided by a jury or in non-jury trials by the judge; questions
of law are decided by the trial judge. The State Constitution
guarantees the right to trial by jury.
The sources of law applied in our state courts are varied. Law
in colonial New York followed English common law, along with
acts of Parliament and decrees of the king. Common law was the
result of centuries of rulings by English judges. According
to common law, judges are expected to follow the decisions of
previous courts in similar cases. But even in colonial New York
English laws began to be modified. Joseph Dudley, first Chief
Judge of the Supreme Court, wrote, "We must not think the
laws of England follow us to the ends of the earth."4 Today
the courts administer laws passed by the State and county legislatures,
administrative agencies, as well as common law as it has been
adopted.
On May 6, 1691, the New York Assembly in its second session
created the Supreme Court of Judicature so that the inhabitants
of the English colony would "have all the good, proper
and just ways and means for securing and recovering their just
rights and demands" (see illustration #2). The new court
heard appeals from local courts and its decisions could be reviewed
by the governor and his council.
Since 1664 the English had begun to establish their judicial
system in New York by replacing the Dutch courts. The earliest
English courts such as the Mayor's Courts of Albany and New
York City and the criminal Court of General Sessions had limited
jurisdictions, but the Supreme Court was to have general jurisdiction.
The Supreme was from the beginning New York's major trial court,
and it also helped to unify the colony's judiciary. Supreme
Court judges established rules for lower court proceedings and
reviewed appeals from the lesser courts.
The famous Zenger trial of 1735 tells us much about the Court's
accomplishments in the colonial period as well as being a landmark
case in its own right. The prosecution of John Peter Zenger,
a German-born printer, grew out of a dispute between Governor
William Cosby and Rip Van Dam over a question of fees due to
the governor. Cosby tried to use the Supreme Court as a means
to settle the dispute.
In the increasingly bitter legal and political conflict, the
opposition to Cosby hired Zenger to publish a newspaper which
attacked the "tyrannical" Governor for allegedly misusing
the court system. In turn, the Governor had Zenger charged with
the crime of seditious libel for causing public disorder by
printing criticisms of the government. Zenger's attorneys tried
to prove that the allegations of corruption which Zenger's newspaper
printed were true, but traditionally under English law, truth
was not a defense to this crime. In reaching a verdict of not
guilty the jury ignored the judge's charge (instructions to
jurors on the law under which they answer questions of fact),
that only he could decide the nature of the crime of libel.
Although the Zenger trial itself did not establish freedom of
the press, the jury's actions encouraged New Yorkers to oppose
use of the accusation of libel to suppress dissent or serve
political ambitions.
The worst defect of the colonial court system was that it did
not provide access to all New Yorkers and excluded African americans
and Native americans, and limited the role of women. Although
women occasionally appeared in the Supreme Court from its beginnings
to represent themselves or their husbands, it was many years
before women were admitted to practice law as a career or serve
as judges.
It is interesting to note that despite the Dutch participation
in the slave trade, in New Netherland, African slaves had a
legal status similar to white indentured servants. In the courts,
slaves had the right to testify and sue for wages. But slave
codes passed by the colonial Assembly deprived both free and
enslaved blacks of the right to own property and earn a living.
In the period before the american Revolution (1775-1783) there
were few whites who opposed slavery even though many of them
demanded freedom from English rule.
Nevertheless, in the years of increasing political conflict
before the Revolution simply by upholding common law procedures
the Supreme Court had protected popular leaders from arbitrary
government prosecution. For example, the attempted prosecution
of seditious libel of the author of a pamphlet which criticized
the Assembly failed for lack of a witness, since the accused
could not be forced to testify against himself (King v. Alexander
McDougall, 1769-1770). In another case the Supreme Court would
not permit an influential merchant to appeal to an English appeals
court the jury's verdict against him in a case of assault (Edward
Forcey v. Thomas Cunningham, 1763).
Therefore, the Revolutionary leaders who met in Kingston (Ulster
County) to establish a permanent state government in April 1777
did not express dissatisfaction with the courts. The first Constitution
provided for continuation of the Supreme Court and the enforcement
of the laws in effect up until then. John Jay was chosen the
State's first Chief Judge, and later the first Chief Justice
of the United States Supreme Court. In addition to guaranteeing
the right to trial by jury, the Constitution prohibited the
government from creating a new court which did not follow common
law as Cosby had seemingly done in the time of Zenger.
But some problems of the colonial period continued. For example,
in 1803 the Federalist editor of a Columbia County newspaper
was convicted of seditious libel for printing articles criticizing
President Thomas Jefferson (People v. Croswell, 3 Johnson's
Cases 33). Finally after Alexander Hamilton successfully appealed
the verdict the legislature passed a law allowing the truth
of a statement to be used as a defense against a charge of libel.
The focus of many reform efforts concerned the procedures of
the courts, especially to eliminate unnecessary delays. Legislation
resulted in a statute of limitations whereby legal actions had
to be brought within certain periods of time; replacement of
archaic procedures; and the codification of statutory laws.
The code of civil procedure passed in 1848 continues today as
the basis of the current Civil Practice Laws and Rules.
Additionally, a system of appellate review was necessary for
the trial courts to reconcile conflicting precedents, apply
untested legislation to the standards of the Constitution, and
adjust rulings of law to changing circumstances. At first the
court or last resort was called the Court for the Trial of Impeachments
and Corrections of Errors. It consisted of the Senate, the Chancellor
of the Court of Chancery, and the judges of the Supreme Court
as legal advisors. A permanent high court, the Court of Appeals
replaced this court in 1846. Until 1895 there was an intermediate
appellate court formed by occasional sessions of three judges
in each judicial district called the Appellate Term of the Supreme
Court. The Constitution of 1894 placed this function in a permanent
Appellate Division in each of four departments.
Legislation which gradually achieved the abolition of slavery
in New York on July 4, 1827, did not eliminate its stigma for
African americans. For instance the Constitution of 1821 removed
property requirements for voting for whites but raised it for
blacks. The highest court of the State denied freedom to a fugitive
slave in 1835 (Jack v. Mary Martin, 14 Wendell 507). But in
an 1852 decision a Supreme Court judge freed eight slaves who
had escaped while being transferred from Virginia to Texas.
In his ruling the judge ignored federal laws about fugitive
slaves on the basis that under the law of nature, New York's
laws were sufficient to deny the former owner a right to the
possession of slaves in this State (People v. Napoleon Lemmon,
5 Sandford 681); despite appeals this ruling was upheld. Although
such decisions and the provisions of the Fourteenth amendment
of the United States Constitution did not provide full equality
for blacks, a step was taken in 1886 when a decision of the
Supreme Court in Chenango County was upheld fining the owner
of a skating rink for prohibiting three men on the basis of
a provision of the penal code barring racial exclusion from
places of public amusement and accommodations (People v. Calvin
King, 110 NY 418). Such cases were important for the black community's
twentieth century struggle for equality.
The courts also tested legislation passed in response to public
demand for protection in work and home environments. Much of
the regulatory laws to protect safety and health of workers
and consumers were considered applications of the State's "police
powers." In a test of an early attempt to establish maximum
working hours, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in
the Fourth Department upheld a county court's fine of a Utica
bakery owner on the basis that in seeking to protect the health
of bakers the State had properly used its police powers; but
this ruling was reversed in the federal courts (People v. Lochner,
177 NY 145). On the other hand, the Court of Appeals extended
the responsibility of manufacturers of automobiles to the safety
of the finished product in a famous opinion written by Chief
Judge Benjamin Cardozo (later a Justice of the United States
Supreme Court) (MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 NY 382).
This case developed the area of law called products liability.
Fifty years ago, the distinguished attorney John W. Davis said
of the early history of the Supreme Court, "Liberty and
justice - those are in truth the pillars that our fathers raised,
the beacons that they set. Their light, we fondly claim, shines
on the path of all our later history."5 The proud history
of New York State's Supreme Court reflects the dedication of
judges, court personnel and attorneys, together with the people
of the State of New York, in seeking a just society.
1Robert W. Abrams, NY State Attorney General, "Public
Statement", May 1, 1991.
2Ibid.
3The Supreme Court of the State of New York 1691-1941: Exercises
Upon the Occasion of the Two Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary
of its Founding, Albany, New York, May 28, 1941 (Stamford, Conn.:
Overlook Press, 1941), p. 11.
4Paul M. Hamlin and Charles E. Baker, Supreme Court of Judicature
of the Province of New York, 1691-1704 (New York: New York Historical
Society, 1959), vol. 1, p. 40.
5Ibid, 61.
|
3rd
JD
