By E. LEO MILONAS

For the past several years, New York State Chief Judge Judith Kaye has proposed a constitutional amendment to reform our state's outdated and inefficient court system by restructuring the trial courts.

This year's effort to achieve passage has focused on the benefits of consolidation to victims of domestic violence and to children and families. The effort is gaining significant momentum, and there is even hope that court restructuring may see first passage this session. (To get on the ballot, a constitutional amendment must be passed by two separately elected Legislatures.)

New York now has nine trial courts with sometimes overlapping jurisdictions, which often forces litigants to appear in several courts for the same matter. Not only does this confuse and frustrate the goals of justice, it can work particular hardships on many of the millions of people who use the courts annually.

For example, jurisdictional confusion can be devastating to victims of domestic violence who may have to go to Criminal, Family and Supreme courts before finding refuge from abuse.

If adopted, Judge Kaye's proposal would overhaul the state's courts, collapsing a nine-tier system into a more logical and efficient three tiers. Family Court, County Court and the Court of Claims would merge into Supreme Court, bringing about a more even distribution of resources.

The proposal would broaden the number and diversity of justices who are eligible to be designated to the Appellate Division. And it would make the courts more accessible to the public and the bar. Litigants would no longer need to spend their days waiting in one courthouse just to be sent to another. Neither would they have to repeat their sometimes traumatic stories numerous times to different judges, only to be faced with conflicting results. And according to the Office of Court Administration, restructuring would save New York $131 million in five years.

With all these advantages, one might wonder how this legislation could ever be defeated. But the chief obstacle is familiar: Albany politics. Some political leaders and legislators see court reform as a chance to alter the method of selecting judges, notably New York City Family Court judges, from appointment to election and have linked this to their version of the bill. The manner of selecting judges has repercussions for political parties, which can exercise far greater leverage on the judicial system when judges are elected.

The Association of the Bar of the City of New York has consistently advocated for the appointment and merit selection of judges and believes this method produces the most qualified judiciary. Yet we agree with Judge Kaye that selection of judges is so filled with political strife that any change in the method of judicial selection is best left for another day.

Our elected leaders in Albany must be made to understand that while they wrestle with political parties and power, New York's citizens, particularly families and children, are being further harmed by inefficiency in the very courts meant to protect them.

Daily News
June 3, 2002