| "Kaye —
Year in Review, 1996-1997 Term" |
|
After the Court of Appeals convened for the first time on September 7, 1847, the Albany Evening Journal reported that the original eight judges were "distinguished jurists" whose "well known adaption to the duties which the people have imposed upon them furnishes a guarantee that whatever is brought before them will be despatched with proper facility, and with a single eye to justice and right." [5] Although much has changed over the last 150 years, that guarantee endures. Indeed, while neither life nor law in 1997 bears much resemblance to 1847, the Court's rich tradition of justice, fairness and equal treatment under the law continues to define our work today. For 150 years, the Court of Appeals has decided cases without fear or favor, enforcing obligations and protecting rights guaranteed by the constitutions and laws of the state and nation. Time has not eroded our commitment to justice and the rule of law. Adherence to these timeless principles is, of course, not our only link with the past. Indeed, the continuity of the Court's process is clearly visible in many other respects, especially the volume and sweep of landmark decisions. As Professor Stewart E. Sterk recently noted, "no other state court has generated leading case after leading case in every decade for 150 years."[6] These influential decisions are beacons of the past that continue to illuminate today's legal pathways, guiding us in the resolution of cases that have a distinctly modern twist. From its inception the Court of Appeals has been among the busiest courts in the nation. In its early days, the court was besieged with far too many cases, a consequence of the court's broad jurisdiction and the state's burgeoning economy. Indeed, overcrowded calendars, case backlogs and long delays were a persistent problem. By 1870 the Albany Law Journal asked: "How can this court expect to decide nearly twice as many cases as the Federal Supreme Court, and live? It is no exaggeration to say that the work has killed three of the former members, and it must tell on the others eventually . . . . There is a general feeling in our profession that this pace cannot be kept up much longer." [7] In 1883, the Journal noted that four judges had "literally worked themselves to death" trying to keep up with the incredible caseload, "and other members of the court have seriously impaired their health in their hopeless undertaking."[8] Today, the Court of Appeals of the State of New York decides about three times as many cases as the Federal Supreme Court,[9] or close to 300 cases annually. And I am pleased to report that my six colleagues [10]- though extremely hard working-are in excellent health. Even more happily, the Court of Appeals for the past several decades has been completely current in its docket. Litigants usually can expect to receive their decisions, in full opinions, within six weeks of oral argument-likely a record for busy high courts. A mountain of history explains the difference. Most pertinently, we evolved to what is now essentially a "cert" court. The Court's docket of close to 300 full appeals is by and large selected by the judges from the approximately 1500 civil motions and 3000 criminal applications for leave to appeal received annually. In civil cases, applications for leave to appeal are made by motion to the full Court (a vote of two judges suffices to bring a case to the Court), and in criminal cases by letter addressed to a single judge of the Court (who alone grants or denies leave). Our docket is generally about sixty percent civil, forty percent criminal. In its early years, the Court consistently convened in Albany about 100 days a year, commencing each session with a consultation among the judges about cases that had been argued the previous session.[11] Opinions written and circulated during the next intersession were then "subjected to thorough discussion" and to "more or less modification."[12] Decisions announced at the close of that session were revised even further before they were sent to the Reporter for publication.[13] Today, the Court still convenes in Albany for about 100 days a year- approximately eight two-week sessions. The Albany sessions are usually followed by three-week sessions in Home Chambers (situated throughout the State), during which time the judges individually draft and review decisions, study briefs for upcoming arguments and review applications for leave to appeal. Additionally, in June and December the Court meets for Decision Days (at which no arguments are heard), and in August for a special session of election appeals. Thus, except for July, the Court of Appeals convenes in Albany during every month. Although the work days in Home Chambers are invariably long, full and fascinating, there is a special excitement as we prepare for the two-week Albany sessions. The judges look forward to spirited arguments with one another around the Conference Table every morning, followed by lively oral arguments every afternoon in our courtroom,[14] when we can confront counsel with concerns gleaned from the briefs. Having enjoyed the practice of law for twenty-one years as a commercial litigator with New York City law firms before the miracle of my appointment to the Court of Appeals, I can honestly say that no professional experience matches those weeks in Albany, when the seven of us focus our entire energies-from early morning until late evening-on the business of the Court. While the changed jurisdiction accounts in part for the Court's remarkable currency, major credit is also due to administrative reforms put in place by Chief Judge Charles D. Breitel more than two decades ago. At that time, the Court became a "hot bench," meaning that each of us arrives in Albany prepared for the oral arguments and prepared to vote the cases the following day; until that time there is no discussion among the judges about the cases. Additionally, unlike other courts where the chief or senior judge in the majority assigns the writings, on the Court of Appeals cases are assigned for writing randomly. At the close of the day's oral arguments, each judge selects an index card, turned face down, bearing the name of a case argued that afternoon. We are then responsible for reporting that case at Conference the following morning and, assuming the reporting judge carries a majority, for the writing. Randomness means that-although the Court's docket is wildly diverse-no one of us is designated "the expert" in any particular subject area. The combination of a hot bench and randomness, moreover, insures both that every case receives the best independent judgment of each member of the Court of Appeals, and that we are prepared to reach resolution-and disposition-promptly, which best serves the litigants and the law. Against this backdrop I now turn to the Year in Review. |
 The Historical Society of the Courts of the State of New York |
