State lawmakers say they have a way to address a longstanding shortage of judges that contributes to people accused of crimes languishing in jail for years awaiting trial: Make it easier to swear in more judges. But there’s an unexpected opponent of the measure — a group representing the judges themselves.
The number of pending criminal cases in the state has increased by 35.7% since 2019, and the number of pending civil cases has increased 21% over the same period, according to the Office of Court Administration. In New York City, about 9% of the people discharged from city jails had been there for more than a year, a report by City Comptroller Brad Lander found. People accused of murder often wait more than three years to face juries.
Most lawmakers agree that a lack of judges contributes to these delays. But state Supreme Court Justice Frank Caruso, who sits in Niagara County, said a proposal that’s marching through the state Legislature could politicize the judiciary and result in fewer judges in less-populous areas.
“Judgeships could be shifted from one end of the state to the other and the people would not have their fair and equal representation,” said Caruso, president of the Association of Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. “There's got to be a point where the politics has to stop.”
Caruso has been on the bench for 30 years, including 19 as a justice of the New York State Supreme Court. Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, which is at the top of the federal judicial system, the state Supreme Court is a first stop for most major criminal and civil cases.
Justices are elected in each of 13 districts of varying sizes. Each of New York City’s five boroughs serves as its own judicial district. But in upstate areas, judicial districts include multiple counties.
The number of justices in each district is currently capped in the state constitution, which allows one justice for every 50,000 people. Assemblymember Alex Bores, a Democrat, said Manhattan, the Bronx and Albany counties have already hit their limits, and cases are backing up.
“It's already impacting trials in many parts of the state. It's eventually going to impact everywhere,” he said. “It's time that we take care of this and fix it once and for all.”
Bores and state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal authored an amendment to the constitution that would simply eliminate the population cap. But if the amendment is enacted, legislators would be able to set the number of Supreme Court seats with minimal regard to population.
Amending the state constitution is a multistep process. Any change must be approved by two successively elected crops of state lawmakers and then approved in a popular referendum. The state Senate and Assembly gave “first passage” to the judicial cap amendment last year, and Bores said he hopes the second passage will take place before legislators leave the state Capitol in June.
Supporters of the proposal say it would give greater flexibility and prompt efficiency. It’s been particularly important since the COVID-19 pandemic temporarily forced courts to curtail their operations. Business leaders and Gov. Kathy Hochul support the idea, as do the state’s major bar associations.
The state’s Office of Court Administration currently shifts resources to deal with the backlog by designating other judges as acting Supreme Court justices. This is problematic, the New York City Bar Association wrote in a 2023 report.
“Not only has this ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ approach depleted these other courts of judicial resources, it has created a de facto permanent and large class of ‘acting Supreme Court justices,’ sitting in a court other than the one to which they were either elected by the people or appointed by the relevant appointing authority,” the legal group wrote. “In this era of metrics, the people of New York State are entitled to a modern, flexible, evidence-based method of assessing the state’s judicial needs, as is the case in many other states and the federal judiciary.”
But many Republicans object to the proposal. State Sen. Andrew Lanza said he’s concerned justices would be shifted from his borough of Staten Island to Manhattan if the proposal is passed.
“As is often the case with legislation, it's sort of the unintended consequences. And what I've learned after all these years is that when legislation allows for there to be doors opened — they're typically opened,” he said.
Bores said Lanza’s concerns weren’t rooted in reality.
Caruso’s group backs an alternative proposal authored by Assemblymember Jeff Dinowitz, a Democrat from the Bronx. It would allow a Supreme Court justice for every 30,000 residents, thereby creating room for another 266 judgeships.
Dinowitz said his bill would make sure judicial resources are more fairly distributed, and that lawmakers don’t simply add justices to some places.
“We do live in a Manhattan-centric world, and the needs are much greater than the needs of Manhattan,” he said.
But if lawmakers shifted to Dinowitz’s approach, no amendment could take effect until at least 2027, Bores countered.
“Everyone accepts that the current limit is not acceptable,” Bores said. “So if you really care about the issue deeply, you probably want the solution sooner rather than later.”
