Senate Bill S6652

                                BILL NUMBER:S6652

TITLE OF BILL:
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY
proposing an amendment to subdivision c of section 1 of article 6 of the
constitution, in relation to processes, warrants and other mandates of
city courts outside the city of New York

This measure is proposed by the Chief Administrative Judge to enhance
efficiency and access to justice among the 61 City Courts outside New
York City.

Ratified by the People over 50 years ago, the 1961 version of Article
VI of the Constitution contemplated a collection of City Courts
outside New York City that mainly were small, part-time and somewhat
peripheral to the administration of justice in New York State. At
that time, City Courts were funded by localities, their dockets were
relatively small, and procedures trended toward relative informality.
Consistent with these dynamics, the 1961 version of Article VI
limited City Court service of process to the county or adjoining
county; the Uniform City Court Act (L. 1964, c. 497) thereafter
reflected these service limitations.

Today's City Courts increasingly are full-time, high-docket,
sophisticated and integral parts of our Judiciary. Their costs are
paid by the State in like fashion as Supreme and County Courts (see
              

Judiciary Law § 39; L. 1977, c. 966), and their judges increasingly
preside in core County and Family Court parts that otherwise would
lack sufficient coverage (see NY Const, art VI, § 26(j)(2)). City
Court dockets have mushroomed: City Courts bear the full brunt of
civil and criminal quality-of-life calendars affecting New York's
communities, economy and civic life. City Courts routinely operate
dedicated Parts for Domestic Violence and Drug Treatment, as well as
over full calendars of consumer credit and housing cases. As such,
today's City Courts occupy fundamentally different positions than in
1961, and their effective operation is more vital than ever to the
vitality of New York's civil and criminal justice systems.

Given these modem realities, and recognizing that today's New Yorkers
routinely travel and transact commerce between counties, the 1961
Constitution's restraints on service of City Court process are
anachronistic at best. Whatever justification there may have been for
geographical service distinctions between City Courts and District
Courts (the functional equivalent of City Courts in Nassau and
Suffolk Counties), no valid justification exists today given the
position of City Courts in New York's 21st century court system.
There is no basis consistent with the administration of justice to
single out today's City Courts as the only State-paid courts that
lack statewide service of process.

This restriction also impairs efficiency in numerous ways with no
benefit. On the criminal side, disallowing City Court service beyond
the county or adjacent county either frustrates process on a criminal
defendant (UCCA § 2005) or requires a second court to endorse the
City Court's process - requiring taxpayers to subsidize double work
(see e.g.
CPL 120.70(2)(b)). On the civil side, geographic limits on City Court
service can force City Court cases to be re-commenced in Supreme or
County Court, which constitutionally enjoy statewide service - a
result that violates public policy favoring local access to justice
and the lower costs of proceeding in local courts. This anachronism
also impedes City Court powers in relation to routine disclosure
(UCCA § 1101), subpoenas (UCCA § 1201), enforcement (UCCA § 1508) and
punishment of contempt (UCCA § 1509), all of which stop abruptly at a
county line. Rather than encourage the expediency of adjudication in
City Court, these outdated restraints encourage the opposite result
and undermine the administration of justice by rewarding adverse
parties' efforts to evade service.

To redress these unnecessary complexities, this measure would empower
the Legislature to authorize statewide service of City Court process.
If approved by the Legislature and the voters, and then implemented
with appropriate legislation, this measure would promote efficiency
and effectiveness in the courts, with correspondingly reduced costs
for both private litigants and the justice system.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
None. New proposal.