Comment on ADR Proposal and the Transfer and Assignment Proposal

SUMMARY

The Council on Judicial Administration (James P. Chou, Chair), Litigation Committee (Cassandra Porsch, Chair) and State Courts of Superior Jurisdiction Committee (Joseph M. Sanderson, Chair) submitted a letter in response to a request for public comment from the Administrative Board of the NYS court system on (i) a proposal to amend 22 NYCRR §§ 160.1(f), 160.2(a), 160.3(a) & 160.5 relating to the confidentiality of alternative dispute resolution activities (the “ADR Proposal”); and (ii) to amend 22 NYCRR §§ 200.11, 202.3, 205.3, 205.27, 206.3 & 210.3 and to add a new 22 NYCRR § 207.3 regarding the transfer and assignment of cases and judges (the “Transfer and Assignment Proposal”). All three committees support the Transfer and Assignment Proposal, which seeks to provide clarity regarding the current assignment and transfer procedures, eliminate outdated language, and increase the overall efficiency of court operations, although the State Courts Committee had a question as to why the language with respect to the Surrogate’s court refers to a “designee” while the language with respect to the other courts refers to administrative judges or supervising judges. The CJA did not consider the ADR Proposal, but the State Courts Committee and Litigation Committee both voted to support the revised language, which seeks to eliminate confusion regarding the applicability of confidentiality under the rule.

REPORT

By Email

David Nocenti, Esq.
Office of Court Administration
25 Beaver Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10004
rulecomments@nycourts.gov

Re: New York City Bar Association Response to Request for Public Comment on (i) a proposal to amend 22 NYCRR §§ 160.1(f), 160.2(a), 160.3(a) & 160.5 relating to the confidentiality of alternative dispute resolution activities (the “ADR Proposal”); and (ii) to amend 22 NYCRR §§ 200.11, 202.3, 205.3, 205.27, 206.3 & 210.3 and to add a new 22 NYCRR § 207.3 regarding the transfer and assignment of cases and judges (the “Transfer and Assignment Proposal”)

Dear Mr. Nocenti:

We write to provide comments with respect to the ADR Proposal and the Transfer and Assignment Proposal as defined above.

The City Bar’s Council on Judicial Administration, State Courts of Superior Jurisdiction, and Litigation Committees support the Transfer and Assignment Proposal, with the CJA and Litigation Committee having clean votes in support of the revised language as proposed.  The State Courts of Superior Jurisdiction Committee had a question as to why the language with respect to the Surrogate’s court refers to a “designee” while the language with respect to the other courts refers to administrative judges or supervising judges.

With regard to the ADR Proposal, the CJA did not consider the proposal.  Both the State Courts of Superior Jurisdiction and Litigation Committees support the ADR Proposal with clean votes in support of the revised language as proposed.

Thank you for considering our comments. If you believe that it would be beneficial, we would be happy to discuss these comments with you further.

James P. Chou, Chair
Council on Judicial Administration

Cassandra Porsch, Chair
Litigation Committee

Joseph M. Sanderson, Chair
State Courts of Superior Jurisdiction