|
"A New Judicial Article for New York" |
|
Footnote *: Delmar Karlen is Professor of Law at New York University, Director of the Institute of Judicial Administration, and a member of the New York Bar. Footnote **:Joseph M. Miller is a member of the California Bar and a Research Associate at the Institute of Judicial Administration. Footnote 1: Breuer, Constitutional Developments in New York 1777-1958 3 (1958). Footnote 2: Breuer, supra note 1, generally; 1 Chester, Legal and Judicial History of New York 323-443 (1911) ; New York State Constitutional Convention Committee, New York State Constitution Annotated (1938), containing texts of New York State constitutions and amendments between 1777 and 1938. Footnote 3: N.Y. Const. (1777) §§ 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, and 32. Footnote 4: Breuer, supra note 1, at 26. Footnote 5: N.Y. Const. (1821) art. 5. Footnote 6: N.Y. Const. (1821) art. 5, § 5. Footnote 7: N.Y. Const. (1821) art. 4. Footnote 8: N.Y. Const. art. 4, § 7. Footnote 9: Niles, The Popular Election of Judges in Historical Perspective, 21 Record of N.Y.C.B.A.523, 526—529 (1966). Footnote 10: N.Y. Const. (1846) art. 6, § 12. Footnote 11: N.Y. Const. (1846) art. 6, §§ 5, 24. § 5: "The legislature shall have the same powers to alter and regulate the jurisdiction and proceedings in law and equity as they have heretofore possessed." See also, New York State Constitutional Convention Committee, Problems Relating to Judicial Administration and Organization 733-4 (1938), indicating that the legislature actually had control of procedure in the early years of the state, but that this was without constitutional authorization. Footnote 12: Historical Rsum of the Judiciary Article and Cognate Sections of the New York State Constitution, in State of New York, Fourth Annual Report of the Judicial Council of the State of New York 151, 157-159 (1938). Footnote 13: Breuer, supra note 1, at 39. Footnote 14: N.Y. Judicial Council, supra note 12, at 161. Footnote 15: Breuer, supra note 1, at 43. Footnote 16: Id. at 50. Footnote 17: Ibid. Footnote 17a: N.Y. Judicial Council, supra note 12, at 162-65. Footnote 18: Breuer, supra note 1, at 52. Footnote 19: Tweed, The Temporary Commission Reports on the Courts, 26 N.Y.S.B.A. Bull. 77, 79-80 (1954). Footnote 20: N.Y. State Temporary Commission on the Courts, 1956 Report to the Governor and the Legislature [1956 N.Y. Legis. Doc. No. 18] 67—83, reprinted 1956 McKinney's N.Y. Sess. Laws 1405, 1439—1449. Footnote 21: 21 N.Y. Const. art. 6. Footnote 22: 22 U.S. Const. art. 3. Footnote 23: 21 N.Y. Const. art. 6, § 1(a). Footnote 24: 24 N.Y. Const. art. 6, § 29. Footnote 25: Elliott, The Judiciary 1-16 (1959). Footnote 26: American Bar Association. Section of Judicial Administration. Model Judicial Article, 47 J. Am. Jud. Soc'y 8 (1963). Footnote 27: Institute of Judicial Administration, Proposed Judiciary Article of the New York Constitution, 35 L.W.V. State News No. 6, Oct. 1958. (Published by the League of Women Voters of New York). Footnote 28: National Municipal League, Model State Constitution 12 (1963). Footnote 29: Peck, Court Organization and Procedures to Meet the Needs of Modern Society., 20 Alabama Lawyer 181, 183-184 (1959); American Bar Association, The Section of Judicial Administration, The Improvement of the Administration of Justice 5 (4th ed. 1961) ; McWilliams, J. W., Court Integration and Unification in the Model Judicial Article, 47 J. Am. Jud. Soc'y 13 (1963). Footnote 30: N.Y.C.B.A., Bad Housekeeping: The Administration of the New York Courts 23-29 (1954). Footnote 31: Id. at 29-34. Footnote 32: Tweed, supra note 19, at 78-79 (1954). Footnote 33: N.Y. Const. art. 6, § 13. Footnote 34: N.Y. Const. art. 6, § 16. Footnote 35: N.Y. Const. art. 6, § 20. Footnote 36: Institute of Judicial Administration, A Guide to Court Systems 29 (4th ed. 1966). Footnote 37: N.Y. Const. art. 6, § 1. Footnote 38: N.Y. Const. art. 6, § 28. Footnote 39: Chester, supra note 2, at 345. Footnote 40: Institute of Judicial Administration, The Justice of the Peace Today (1965). Footnote 41: Id. at 14-15. Footnote 42: Morrison, A Guide for Justices of the Peace, New York (1963). Footnote 43: 378 U.S. 478 (1964). Footnote 44: 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966). Footnote 45: N.Y. Const. art. 6, § 20 (c). Footnote 46: The Surrogate's Courts, which handle admission of wills to probate and supervision of the administration of estates, have their roots deep in the history of New York. In colonial times, the governor handled these functions; but because travel was so difficult, he delegated the work in remote areas to "surrogates." In 1778, the legislature transferred the functions to a separate court of probate and in 1787, a surrogate for each county was authorized to be designated by appointment. In 1823, the probate court was abolished and its jurisdiction transferred to the chancellor. With the abolition of chancery in the 1846 constitution, the county judge was given the work of the surrogate, except where provision should be made by the legislature for a separate officer. Today, the surrogate still exists as a separate officer, though the constitution allows the same individual to act as surrogate and judge of the Family Court and County Court outside of New York City (N.Y. Const. art. 6, §§ 12, 14). Footnote 47: The Family Court, which replaced the Domestic Relations and Children's Courts, has jurisdiction over neglect and support proceedings, paternity, juvenile delinquency, and family offenses proceedings, plus referrals from the Supreme Court, conciliation proceedings, and proceedings concerning physically handicapped and mentally defective or retarded children. (N.Y. Const. art. 6, § 13). Although the Family Court has jurisdiction over most aspects of family life, it lacks jurisdiction over one of the most important—divorce. This becomes even more anomalous when it is considered that recently the grounds of divorce were vastly broadened in New York beyond the former single ground of adultery. Footnote 48: The Court of Claims hears private claims against the state. Originally, such claims were heard by the legislature, but an 1874 amendment to the constitution forbade the legislature to audit or allow any private claim against the state. The power of the legislature to provide by law for the audit and allowance by some appropriate tribunal of claims against the state was continued. The Court of Claims operated until 1950 without constitutional status; the November, 1949 election made it a constitutional court. (Breuer, The New York State Court of Claims (1959)). Footnote 49: N.Y. Times, May 28, 1966, p. 28, cols. 2-5. Footnote 50: N.Y. Const. art. 6, § 14. Footnote 51: N.Y. Const. art. 6, § 26 (a). Footnote 52: Brennan, Efficient Organization and Effective Administration for Today's Courts . . . The Citizen's Responsibility, 48 J. Am. Jud. Soc'y 145, 146-147 (1964). Footnote 52a: Gellhorn, Children and Families in the Courts of New York City 7-9 (1954). Footnote 53: State of New York, Temporary Commission on the Courts, Subcommittee on Modernization and Simplification of the Court Structure. A Proposed Simplified State-wide Court System 5 (1955). Footnote 54: N.Y. Const. art. 6, § 15. Footnote 55: N.Y. Const. art. 6, §§ 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17. Footnote 56: American Bar Association, supra note 26, at 9-10 (§§ 2, 4). Footnote 57: Hawaii Const. art. 5, § 1. Footnote 58: U.S. Const. art. 3. Footnote 59: N.Y. Const. (1777) § 23. Footnote 60: N.Y. Const. (1821) § 7. Footnote 61: Niles, supra note 9, at 526-529; N.Y.C.B.A., supra note 33, at 24. Footnote 62: American Judicature Society, Judicial Selection and Tenure (A.J.S. Information Sheet No. 19, revised January 15, 1965). Footnote 63: N.Y. Const. art. 6, §§ 4(c), 9, 13 (a), 15. Footnote 64: N.Y. Const. art. 6, §§ 2 (c), 21; American Judicature Society, supra note 62, at 1. Footnote 65: Winters & Sunwall, Selected Readings on Administration of Justice and Its Improvement, 7-19; Niles, supra note 9, at 530-531. Footnote 66: Klots, The Selection of Judges and the Short Ballot, 38 J. Am. Jud. Soc'y 134, 136 (1955). Footnote 67: Niles, supra note 9, at 530; Rosenman, A Better Way to Select Judges, 48 J. Am. Jud. Soc'y 86, 88 (1964). Footnote 68: Costikyan, Behind Closed Doors 174-210 (1966); Berle, Elected Judges—Or Appointed? N.Y. Times, Dec. 11, 1955, § 6 (Magazine), p. 26. Footnote 69: Leflar, The Quality of Judges, 35 Ind. L.J. 289, 292 (1960); Roberts, Twenty-five Years Under the Missouri Plan, 49 J. Am. Jut. Soc'y 92 (1965) ; Hearnes, Twenty-five Years Under the Missouri Court Plan, 49 J. Am. Jud. Soc'y 100 (1965) ; Schroeder & Hall, Twenty-five Years' Experience with Merit Selection in Missouri, 44 Texas L. Rev. 1088 (1966); Watson, Missouri Lawyers Evaluate the Merit Plan for Selection and Tenure of Judges, 52 A.B.A.J. 539 (1966). Footnote 70: Costikyan, supra, note 68, at 195-200 (1966). Footnote 71: Ibid. Footnote 72: Ibid. Footnote 73: Cf. Grossman, Lawyers and Judges (1965) ; Grossman, The Role of the American Bar Association in the Selection of Federal Judges: Episodic Involvement to Institutionalized Power, 17 Vand. L. Rev. 785 (1964). Footnote 74: Winters, The Judicial Nominating Committee (Reprinted from Sui Juris, news journal of the Student Bar Association, Boston College Law School) 1966 unpaged. Footnote 75: Brown, The Challenge of Judicial Selection, 41 Los Angeles Bar Bull. 538, 539 (1966). Footnote 76: N.Y. Const. art. 6, §§ 4 (c), 9, 13 (a), 15 (a). Footnote 77: N.Y. Const. art. 6, §§ 2 (a), 6 (c), 9, 10 (b), 12 (c), 13 (a), 15 (a). Footnote 78: N.Y. Const. (1777) art. 24; N.Y. Const. (1821) art. 5, § 3; N.Y. Const. (1846) art. 6, §§ 2, 4, 14; Historical Resume, supra note 12, at 158; Amendments to the Constitution of 1846, in N. Y. State Constitutional Convention Committee, N. Y. State Constitution Annotated (1938), at 80 (§ 13). Footnote 79: N.Y. Judic. Law §§ 114, 115. Footnote 80: N.Y. Const. art. 6, § 24. Footnote 81: Cannon, The New York Court on the Judiciary, 1948 to 1963, 28 Albany L. Rev. 1, 2, n. 6. Footnote 82: N.Y. Const. art. 6, §§ 22d. Footnote 83: Remedies for Judicial Misconduct and Disability: Removal and Discipline of Judges, 41 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 149, 185 (1966). Footnote 84: Cannon, supra note 81, at 3. Footnote 85: Remedies for Judicial Misconduct, supra note 83, at 185-186. Footnote 86: Ibid. Footnote 87: Cal. Const. art. 6, § 1 (b). Footnote 88: Cal. Const. art. 6, § 10 (b). Footnote 89: Burke, Judicial Discipline and Removal; The California Story, 48 J. Am. Jud. Soc'y 167, 170 (1965). Footnote 90: Frankel, Removal of Judges: California Tackles an Old Problem, 49 A.B.A.J. 166, 169 (1963). Footnote 91: Burke, supra note 88, at 171-172. Footnote 92: American Bar Association, supra note 26, at 11 (§ 7). Footnote 93: N.Y. Const. art. 6, § 25 (a) ; Utah Const. art. 8, § 12; Mo. Const. art. 5, § 24; Ill. Const. art. 6, § 17; N.C. Const. art. 4, § 19. Footnote 94: N.Y. Const. art. 6, § 20 (b). Footnote 95: N.Y. Times, Oct. 30, 1966, p. 86, col. 7. Footnote 95a: See e.g., 274 N.Y.S.2d XLIX. Footnote 96: N.Y. Const. art. 6, § 7 (d). Footnote 97: Fla. Const. art. 5, § 6. Footnote 98: 82 Sup. Ct. 691. Footnote 99: Romiti v. Kerner (pending (?) in federal district court in Illinois) ; N.Y. State Assoc. of Trial Lawyers v. Rockefeller (suit filed in federal district court in New York City in March, 1966, seeking an enlarged judiciary on the basis of the one-man, one-vote principle. Footnote 100: Vanderbilt, Improving the Administration of Justice — Two Decades of Development 49 (1957). Footnote 101: N.Y. Sess. Laws 1934, ch. 128. Footnote 102: N.Y. Sess. Laws 1955, ch. 869. Footnote 103: N.Y. Judic. Law § 224 (1966 supp.). Footnote 104: N.Y. Const. art. 6, § 28. Footnote 105: State of New York, Eleventh Annual Report of the Administrative Board of the Judicial Conference 9-10 (1966). Footnote 106: American Bar Association, Section of Judicial Administration, The Improvement of the Administration of Justice 11-14 (4th ed. 1961) ; Ill. Const. art. 6, § 2; N.C. Const. art. 4, § 9 (assignment of judges) ; N.J. Const. art. 6, § 7; Fla. Const. art. 5, § 2. See also Pfiffner & Presthus, Public Administration 197-214 (4th ed. 1960). Footnote 107: N.Y. Const. art. 4, §§ 4, 6. Footnote 108: The Unified Court System of the State of New York; Estimated Cost of Operation as Appropriated for 1966-1967. (A report of the Judicial Conference on file at the Institute of Judicial Administration.) Footnote 109: N.Y.C.B.A., supra note 30, at 97-99. Footnote 110: See, e.g., N.Y. Judic. Law § 143 (1966 supp.). Footnote 111: Sunderland, Implementing the Rule-Making Power, 25 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 27 (1950). Footnote 112: Ibid. Footnote 113: American Bar Association, supra note 106, at 51. Footnote 114: Ibid. Footnote 115: Id. at 52. Footnote 116: Vanderbilt, Minimum Standards of Judicial Administration 91-92 (1949). Footnote 117: New York (State) Advisory Committee on Practice and Procedure. Third Preliminary Report 455 (1959). Footnote 118: N.Y. Judic. Law § 229 (3) (1966 supp.). Footnote 119: 28 U.S.C.A. § 2072; Ariz. Rev, Stat. Ann. § 12-109; Utah Code Ann. § 78-2-4; W. Va. Code Ann. § 51-1-4. Footnote 120: American Bar Association, supra note 106, at 56. Footnote 121: Karlen, Judicial Administration, 1963 Annual Survey of American Law 658. Footnote 122: Weinstein, Issues for the 1967 Constitutional Convention, 38 N.Y.S.B.J. 327, 329-334 (1966). Footnote 123: Students in the seminar were: Miss Alexandra Kressel and Messrs Jeffrey Brodkin, Earl Goldhammer, Anthony Russo, Michael Shagan, John Sherry, Barnett Sneideman, and Frederic Solomon. Footnote 124: Members of the Institute staff who, in addition to the authors of this article, participated in the seminar were: Professor Fannie J. Klein ,and Messrs Allen Harris and Avram Weinberger. Footnote 125: Outside guest experts were: Mrs. Patricia Ames, leader of the N.Y. League of Women Voters' fight for court reform; Federal District Judge Frederick van Pelt Bryan, formerly Counsel to the Temporary Commission on the Courts; Jacob D. Fuchsberg, Esq., former President of the American Trial Lawyers Association; Dean Daniel Gutman of the New York Law School and formerly President Judge of the Municipal Court and counsel to Governor Harriman; Professor Howard Kalodner, Counsel to the Special Committee on the Constitutional Convention of the Bar Association of the City of New York; Thomas F. McCoy, Esq., State Administrator of the New York Courts; Russell D. Niles, Esq., formerly Dean of the Law School and Chancellor of New York University and currently President of the Bar Association of the City of New York; and Leland L. Tolman, Director of Administration of the Courts of the First Judicial Department. |
|
Page 11
 The Historical Society of the Courts of the State of New York |