BILL NUMBER: S9795
SPONSOR: SEPULVEDA
 
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the uniform justice court act, in relation to the right
of defendants in misdemeanor or felony cases to have such matter appear
before a judge or justice admitted to practice law in New York
 
PURPOSE:
This bill would give defendants in criminal cases in town and village
justice courts the right to choose to appear in front of a judge who is
a lawyer.
 
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:
Section one of the bill adds a new section 105-a to the Uniform Justice
Court Act ("UJCA") entitled "Election to proceed in certain criminal
actions." The new section gives a defendant who has been charged with a
misdemeanor or felony, and who is appearing in a justice court, the
right to proceed before a judge who is a lawyer. Thus, a defendant may
"opt out" of proceeding before a non-attorney judge in a criminal case.
The defendant must make such an election in writing, on a form to be
prescribed by the chief administrator of the courts, within specified
time frames.
This legislation would create an automatic right to have a case reas-
signed to an attorney judge, as provided in the first sentence of subdi-
vision (a) of new UCCA § 105-a. As a result, the current "good cause
shown" standard of Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") 170.25 would no longer
have to be met by a defendant seeking to proceed before a lawyer judge.
The newly created "opt-out" right would only be available after arraign-
ment and before the making of substantive motions to prevent forum shop-
ping. Subdivision (c) of the new UJCA § 105-a requires the chief admin-
istrator of the courts to promulgate implementing rules, which must
ensure timely notice to defendants of the right to elect to proceed
before an attorney judge and must also ensure that when such an election
is made, the case is re assigned to an attorney judge in a timely
manner.
It is the legislative intent that notice of the "opt out" right will be
given to defendants during arraignment in two ways: instruction by the
judge and through the form used to make the election, which will also
explain the right and how to exercise it.
The text of this bill is substantially the same as that proposed by the
Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts in Septem-
ber 2008. The Commission's report, discussed below, identified a variety
of problems in the local justice court system and proposed a number of
different solutions. Model legislation was included as an appendix to
the report, and the proposed model legislation was divided into 4
lettered parts, each addressing a different set of issues. This bill
addresses one issue only - the due process concerns that stem from
having non-attorney judges presiding over criminal cases - and the bill
text is contained in section 2 of Part C of the Commission's proposed
Model Legislation.
 
JUSTIFICATION:
In late 2006, the Assembly Judiciary and Codes committees held a public
hearing to address reform of the NYS justice courts. The hearing
followed a series of articles in the New York Times that reported a
variety of problems and alleged abuses by some justices of the town and
village courts. Some of the cases profiled in the NYT series highlighted
the due process and other violations that can result from non-lawyer
justices' lack of familiarity with legal and ethical rules, especially
in criminal cases where liberty interests are at stake. The debate over
the town and village justice courts - whether they should continue in
their present form and whether or not judges should have to be attorneys
admitted to practice, as required for all other courts in the state has
gone on since at least the early part of the 20th century. As part of
this most recent renewal of the debate, a special commission established
in 2006 by Chief Judge Judith Kaye issued a report in September 2008
entitled Justice Most Local: The Future of Town and Village Courts in
New York State (hereinafter referred to as Justice Most Local). The
special commission's report dealt with a wide array of issues, and an
appendix to the report includes proposed model legislation designed to
address those issues. This bill addresses only a single issue: the right
of a Criminal defendant, whose liberty is at issue, to proceed in front
of a judge who is a lawyer. After an extensive review of the justice
courts that included visits to courts across the state, meetings with
justices, clerks, prosecutors, public defenders, probation officers and
other local government officials, and four public hearings, the special
commission concluded that "immediate action" was needed to address,
among other things, "due process violations and other legal errors,"
Justice Most Local, p. 10. In its summary under the heading "Safeguard-
ing Due Process Rights," the report said the following about non-attor-
ney justices: "... we remain concerned about due process issues and the
legal consequences that can be imposed by justices who have not received
a legal degree. After extensive debate about the possible proposals
that might address these recurring concerns, we believe that the
simplest and most effective solution is to provide all defendants...an
"opt-out" right to have their case heard by an attorney judge, at a
point after arraignment but before a trial is scheduled or before
substantive motions are made.... We believe that such an "opt-out "
right should address any substantive or due process concerns, without
entirely dismantling a system that has been in place for hundreds of
years." Justice Most Local, p.17. This bill therefore Creates such an
"opt-out" right, in substantially the same form proposed by the special
commission, as the most practical compromise that will give defendants
the right to have potentially complex legal issues resolved by lawyer
judges without completely divesting non-attorney justices of criminal
jurisdiction.
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
S.7450 of 2025 (Hoylman-Sigal): Died in Judiciary
S.5398 of 2023-2024 (Hoylman-Sigal): Died in Judiciary
S.0426 of 2021-2022 (Hoylman-Sigal): Died in Judiciary
S.7058 of 2019-2020 (Hoylman-Sigal): Died in Judiciary
S.5839 of 2011-2012 (Parker): Died in Energy and Telecommunications
S.4091 (2009-2010)(advanced to third reading in Assembly in 2009).
 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
To be determined.
 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect 120 days after the date on which it shall
have become a law.