A06921 Summary:

BILL NO    A06921 

SAME AS    Same as S 2849

SPONSOR    Weinstein (MS)

COSPNSR    Destito, Lancman

MLTSPNSR   Bing, John, Titone, Zebrowski

Rpld SS8 - 12, add S8, amd S211, Judy L

Provides for the emergency relocation of court terms; permits the governor or
the chief judge to temporarily relocate court terms where there are
circumstances or the threat thereof which prevent the safe and practical
holding of any term.

A06921 Actions:

BILL NO    A06921 

03/17/2009 referred to judiciary
04/20/2009 reported referred to codes
06/10/2009 reported referred to rules
06/22/2009 reported 
06/22/2009 rules report cal.569
06/22/2009 substituted by s2849
           S02849  AMEND=  SAMPSON
           03/04/2009 REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
           03/31/2009 REPORTED AND COMMITTED TO VETERANS, HOMELAND SECURITY AND MILITARY AFFAIRS
           05/12/2009 1ST REPORT CAL.328
           05/13/2009 2ND REPORT CAL.
           05/18/2009 ADVANCED TO THIRD READING 
           06/01/2009 PASSED SENATE
           06/01/2009 DELIVERED TO ASSEMBLY
           06/01/2009 referred to codes
           06/22/2009 substituted for a6921
           06/22/2009 ordered to third reading rules cal.569
           06/22/2009 passed assembly
           06/22/2009 returned to senate
           07/17/2009 DELIVERED TO GOVERNOR
           07/28/2009 SIGNED CHAP.263

A06921 Votes:

A06921 Memo:

BILL NUMBER:A6921

TITLE OF BILL:  An act to amend the judiciary law, in relation to the
emergency relocation of terms of courts; and to repeal certain
provisions of the judiciary law relating thereto

This measure is being introduced at the request of the Judiciary to help
modernize the Judiciary's emergency response system.

In 1909, the Legislature enacted emergency means to temporarily relocate
courts if war, disease or other disruption, or the threat of disruption,
were to prevent the safe holding of court. See Judiciary Law SS8-12.
This statutory scheme, effectively unchanged for a century, distributes
the emergency relocation power among the Governor, New York City Mayor
and a variety of judges, and in all instances constrains emergency court
relocations to within each court's geographical "district." Thus, under
current law:

* the Governor may relocate a court outside New York City to another
location within "its district" (Judiciary Law S8);

* if the Governor has not acted, the presiding judge of a court of
record may relocate it to another location in its "district," in which
case the governor cannot appoint another location (Judiciary Law S9);

* a judge of a court of record Jacking suitable accommodation may
adjourn to elsewhere in its "district" (Judiciary Law S10);

* the New York City Mayor may relocate any court within the city to
another location in the city (see Judiciary Law S11); and

* a County Court judge may relocate the county courthouse to another
location "in the vicinity" (Judiciary Law S12).

These statutes are inadequate for 21st century threats and emergencies.
First, modern threats ranging from the natural (e.g.  avian flu, flood)
to the manmade (e.g. terror attack) readily can paralyze a court's
entire "district" (i.e. the jurisdiction for which a court presides) or
otherwise make proceedings there unsafe or impractical. Thus, limiting
court relocations only to other places within the district could shutter
courts at the very times that the public most need courts to stay open.
This concern is especially compelling for courts presiding in and for
geographically compact areas ( e.g., the Appellate Division and Appel-
late Term in the First Department; Supreme Court in each of New York
City's judicial districts and the County, City and District Courts
statewide), all of which courts could be hobbled by having to remain in
their "districts" despite any emergency.

Second, the fracturing of court relocation powers among so many public
officials (e.g., Governor, New York City Mayor, local judges) undermines
the unified and coordinated response that emergencies require. The

attacks of September 11 taught New York that coordination across branch-
es and levels of government is never more essential than during times of
crisis. The 1909 statutes instead create confused and even contradictory
lines of authority at times most demanding clarity and dispatch. Within
the Judiciary, while current law purports to empower individual judges
to relocate courts, it is the Chief Judge and Chief Administrative Judge
that have the system wide power and resources to ensure that courts
function properly in a temporary location (i.e. provide security to
courts and the public using them, coordinate transport of detained
parties, etc.). All of these powers must be harmonized to avoid chaos
under emergency conditions.  Likewise, the Judiciary's interaction with
other branches and levels of government must be as efficient as possible
to respond properly to emergencies, but the 1909 relocation statutes
predate the advent of modern disaster plans on which all levels of
government rely (see generally Executive Law art 2-B). The Legislature
even provided that disaster plans must provide for the continued effec-
tive operation of the civil and criminal justice systems in consultation
with the Judiciary (see L. 2004, c. 42), yet the relocation statutes do
not require anyone to consider those disaster plans in deciding how and
where to temporarily relocate a court. The result is that emergency
court relocations may conflict with the disaster plans that the execu-
tive branch would apply in those very emergencies.

Third, in the event of an emergency court relocation, the statutes make
no clear provision for cost. Under current law, presumably the political
subdivision for which the court presides would continue to bear the cost
of continuing to provide facilities suitable and sufficient for the
transaction of court business, notwithstanding the temporary relocation
of that court (see Judiciary Law S39(3)). This result, however, raises
hard questions about whether and to what extent issues of court facility
cost are relevant under emergency conditions that require courts to
relocate. Arguably under such conditions, localities ought not bear the
cost of facility relocations beyond their control, especially when the
overriding considerations are the safe and quick re-establishment of
effective court operations.

This measure redresses the foregoing concerns by providing for updated
disaster plans, adapting to modern threats by allowing relocations
beyond court "districts" as necessary, insulating localities against
unfair facility costs arising from these emergency relocations, and
ensuring clear lines of authority under crisis conditions. These changes
will help ensure the continued effective operation of the Judiciary as
an independent branch of government under emergency circumstances, and
enhance proper collaboration among the branches of state government -
and between state and local governments - to streamline emergency
response in and for the courts and among the many state and local stake-
holders intimately involved in day-to-day court operations. To these
ends:

Section one repeals the anachronistic Judiciary Law sections 8-12 and
inserts a new Judiciary Law section 8 to provide a modern emergency
response system for New York's courts. If a court location is unsafe or

impractical for the holding of a trial court, then the Governor may by
order appoint another place for the temporary holding of court after
consulting with the Chief Judge or his or her designee if practicable.
For the Court of Appeals and for trial courts where the Governor has not
acted, the relocation power would fall to the Chief Judge. For interme-
diate appellate courts (i.e. Appellate Division and Appellate Terms of
Supreme Court), the relocation power would fall to the Presiding Justice
of the Appellate Division after consulting with the Chief Judge or his
or her designee. All temporary relocations must be to the most proximate
place that the term of court safely and practicably can preside, and
should be consistent with applicable State and local disaster prepared-
ness plans. Also, for trial courts, temporary relocations must be after
consultation with relevant local leaders (e.g., county executives or
mayors) if practicable. Relocation orders would expire within 30 days
but could be renewed for successive periods of 30 days each in like
fashion as an original order. Regardless where a court temporarily sits,
the court would continue to preside on behalf of its original jurisdic-
tion (i.e. judicial department, judicial district, county, city, etc.)
and the same substantive and procedural laws (e.g.  governing venue,
jury selection, papers and appeals) would apply as if the court were not
relocated. If a court is relocated temporarily outside its original
jurisdiction, then facility costs would not be borne by the receiving
locality but instead would become State costs charged to the Office of
Court Administration.

Section two adds to Judiciary Law section 211 a new subdivision five to
memorialize the Chief Judge's emergency relocation powers as provided
above.

Section three recognizes the continuing obligation of the State Disaster
Preparedness Commission and local disaster preparedness commissions to
insure that the disaster preparedness plans for which they are responsi-
ble take appropriate account of the provisions of this measure.

This measure would have no current fiscal impact on the State or any
locality, and during emergencies would provide salutary fiscal benefits
to localities by relieving them of court facility costs associated with
emergency court relocations outside their original districts.

This measure would take effect immediately.

2008 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
Senate 6900 (Sen. DeFrancisco) (Rules)
Assembly 10616 (M. of A. Weinstein (Passed)