|
This condition of the courts was well suited to the predominantly agrarian and sparsely populated society that the State had been. It was not at all conducive to the larger and more commercially-dominated society that, in the middle of the 19th Century, the State was becoming. To accommodate the Statets evolving character, therefore, the 1846 convention completely overhauled its judicial establishment. First, the Supreme Court was substantially enlarged -- with the number of its justices being increased from 3 to a minimum of 32. These justices would be selected from and serve in judicial districts drawn to coincide with county lines. Supreme Court’s mandate changed, too, as the classic division between equity and law courts was eliminated, and the Supreme Court became a statewide court of complete and original jurisdiction. At the same time, lesser trial courts, with limited subject matter and geographical jurisdiction, were given constitutional status. Second, the Convention gave birth to the beginnings of a two-tiered appellate apparatus. A General Term of Supreme Court, the predecessor of today’s Appellate Divisions, was established as an intermediate Appellate Court. Also established was the Court of Appeals to serve then, as it does now, as the State’s highest court of appellate jurisdiction. Finally, the Convention mandated that trial judges be popularly elected for fixed terms of office, and that the Legislature enjoy significant rule—making authority in the formulation of court procedures. The court system that emerged from the Constitutional Convention of 1846, and that the People of the State then ratified, has proven to be remarkably durable and permanent. The courts it established or continued have remained with us to this day, as has the organizational concept of the judicial district. In other respects, however, New York’s court system has changed dramatically over the past 135 years. Most notable, as we shall see, have been the changes in the way it is financed and administered. Even after adoption of the new Constitution of 1846, the courts retained much of the independence and insularity their predecessors had enjoyed. Trial courts were virtually autonomous bodies, both administratively and jurisdictionally. Little State funding was available to support their operation, and so each local court confined its appeals for budgetary assistance and needed facilities to the local governmental unit of which it was a part. With few exceptions, each court was self-administered or, where multi-judge courts sat, they were administered by a presiding judge or collegial body of the judges themselves. |
 Page 3   The Historical Society of the Courts of the State of New York |