Senate Bill S9022

                             
                     S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
                                   9022
 
                             I N  S E N A T E
 
                             January 22, 2026
                                ___________
 
 Introduced  by  Sen.  FAHY  --  read twice and ordered printed, and when
   printed to be committed to the Committee on Judiciary
 
 AN ACT to amend the judiciary law, in relation to eliminating the  with-
   holding  of  state  aid as an enforcement mechanism for court facility
   compliance, and establishing an  appeal  process  for  proposed  court
   facility  plans; and to repeal certain provisions of such law relating
   thereto
 
   THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND  ASSEM-
 BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
 
   Section  1.  Legislative  findings  and intent. The legislature hereby
 finds and declares that:
   The unified court system is a core function of state  government,  and
 the  state  has  a  constitutional  obligation to ensure that courts are
 safe, accessible, and capable of  carrying  out  the  administration  of
 justice.
   Pursuant  to  sections  39  and  39-b of the judiciary law, cities are
 responsible for providing suitable and sufficient court facilities,  and
 the  chief  administrator  of  the courts is authorized to establish and
 enforce minimum standards for such facilities.
   The legislature further finds that the withholding or seizure of unre-
 stricted state aid has become  the  primary  enforcement  mechanism  for
 court  facility  compliance,  notwithstanding  the  absence  of a formal
 appeal process or independent review of proposed court facility plans.
   The legislature finds that this enforcement structure may compel muni-
 cipalities to accept capital plans  without  meaningful  opportunity  to
 challenge  scope,  sequencing,  or  feasibility, and may undermine local
 fiscal stability and essential municipal services.
   It is therefore the intent of the legislature to eliminate  the  with-
 holding  of  state  aid  as  an enforcement mechanism for court facility
 compliance, while preserving court facility standards and establishing a
 fair, transparent, and independent process for reviewing  and  resolving
 disputes regarding proposed court facility plans.
   §  2.  Subdivision 4 of section 39-b of the judiciary law is REPEALED,
 and three new subdivisions 4, 5 and 6 are added to read as follows:
   4. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR
 OF THE COURTS SHALL NOT WITHHOLD, REDUCE, SUSPEND, SEIZE,  OR  OTHERWISE
 INTERCEPT  ANY  STATE AID, ASSISTANCE, OR PAYMENT OTHERWISE PAYABLE TO A
              

 
  EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                       [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                            LBD14469-02-6
 S. 9022                             2
 
 CITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENFORCING COMPLIANCE WITH  THE  REQUIREMENTS  OF
 THIS SECTION OR SECTION THIRTY-NINE OF THIS ARTICLE.
   5.  (A) ANY WRITTEN DETERMINATION, DIRECTIVE, REQUIREMENT, OR PROPOSED
 COURT FACILITY COMPLIANCE PLAN ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF  THE
 COURTS  THAT  IDENTIFIES  DEFICIENCIES,  MANDATES  CORRECTIVE ACTION, OR
 REQUIRES A CITY TO UNDERTAKE  CAPITAL  IMPROVEMENTS  OR  OTHER  REMEDIAL
 MEASURES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO APPEAL PURSUANT TO THIS SUBDIVISION.
   (B)  A  CITY  MAY  FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN SIXTY DAYS OF RECEIPT OF SUCH
 DETERMINATION, DIRECTIVE, OR PROPOSED PLAN.  THE  FILING  OF  AN  APPEAL
 SHALL STAY ANY ENFORCEMENT ACTION PENDING FINAL RESOLUTION.
   (C)  APPEALS  SHALL BE HEARD BY AN INDEPENDENT COURT FACILITIES REVIEW
 PANEL, WHICH SHALL BE ESTABLISHED  FOR  THE  PURPOSE  OF  REVIEWING  THE
 SCOPE,  REASONABLENESS,  FEASIBILITY,  AND  PROPORTIONALITY  OF PROPOSED
 COURT FACILITY PLANS. THE COURT FACILITIES REVIEW  PANEL  SHALL  CONSIST
 OF:
   (I) THE DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF THE BUDGET, OR THEIR DESIGNEE;
   (II) THE STATE COMPTROLLER, OR THEIR DESIGNEE;
   (III) THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COURTS, OR THEIR DESIGNEE; AND
   (IV) TWO MEMBERS, RESPECTIVELY APPOINTED BY THE TEMPORARY PRESIDENT OF
 THE  SENATE AND THE SPEAKER OF THE ASSEMBLY, WITH DEMONSTRATED EXPERTISE
 IN MUNICIPAL FINANCE, PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION, OR INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING.
   (D) THE COURT FACILITIES REVIEW PANEL SHALL CONSIDER, AT A MINIMUM:
   (I) WHETHER THE PROPOSED PLAN IS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE  WITH
 APPLICABLE COURT FACILITY STANDARDS;
   (II)  WHETHER  ALTERNATIVE  SCOPES,  PHASING,  LOCATIONS, OR TIMELINES
 WOULD REASONABLY ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE;
   (III) WHETHER THE PROPOSED PLAN WOULD REQUIRE BORROWING THAT  VIOLATES
 OR  APPROACHES  LIMITATIONS  IMPOSED BY THE LOCAL FINANCE LAW, THE STATE
 CONSTITUTION, OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE LAW;
   (IV) WHETHER THE PROPOSED PLAN  APPROPRIATELY  BALANCES  COURT  OPERA-
 TIONAL NEEDS WITH MUNICIPAL FISCAL AND OPERATIONAL CONSTRAINTS; AND
   (V) WHETHER THE PROPOSED PLAN REFLECTS A REASONABLE EXERCISE OF ADMIN-
 ISTRATIVE DISCRETION.
   (E)  WITHIN  NINETY DAYS OF RECEIPT OF AN APPEAL, THE COURT FACILITIES
 REVIEW PANEL MAY AFFIRM THE PROPOSED PLAN, MODIFY THE  PLAN,  OR  REMAND
 THE  PLAN  TO THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION FOR REVISION CONSISTENT
 WITH SUCH PANEL'S FINDINGS.
   6. (A) UPON THE ISSUANCE OF A FINAL DETERMINATION BY THE COURT FACILI-
 TIES REVIEW PANEL PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION FIVE OF THIS SECTION, THE CITY
 AND THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION SHALL ENTER INTO A WRITTEN  COURT
 FACILITY COMPLIANCE PLAN CONSISTENT WITH SUCH DETERMINATION.
   (B)  THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COURTS MAY ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH
 AN APPROVED PLAN THROUGH REASONABLE  ADMINISTRATIVE  MEASURES,  PROVIDED
 THAT  SUCH  ENFORCEMENT  SHALL  NOT  INCLUDE THE WITHHOLDING, REDUCTION,
 SUSPENSION, OR SEIZURE OF STATE AID.
   (C) NOTHING IN THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO RELIEVE ANY CITY
 OF ITS OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE SUITABLE AND SUFFICIENT COURT FACILITIES.
   § 3. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part
 of this act shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction  to
 be  invalid,  such  judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the
 remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause,
 sentence, paragraph, subdivision,  section,  or  part  thereof  directly
 involved  in  the  controversy  in  which  such judgment shall have been
 rendered.
   § 4. This act shall take effect immediately.