Support for the Timely Justice Act, Ensuring Adequate Judicial Resources in New York State Courts

SUMMARY

The Council on Judicial Administration, Commercial Law and Uniform State Laws Committee, Estate and Gift Taxation Committee, Litigation Committee, State Courts of Superior Jurisdiction Committee and Torts and Product Liability Committee issued a report in support of the Timely Justice Act, legislation that would require that the Chief Administrative Judge of the Office of Court Administration (OCA) analyze the caseloads and workloads of judges in each court throughout the court system and request changes when appropriate on an annual basis. This legislation grew out of recommendations made by the Council in their 2023 report “Repeal the Cap and Do the Math: Why We Need a Modern, Flexible, Evidence-based Method of Assessing New York’s Judicial Needs.”  Throughout its history, New York State has struggled with an insufficient number of judicial seats necessitating stopgap measures that have resulted in a complicated and overworked court system that fails to provide justice to all. Having an adequate number of judges in each court is essential to providing civil litigants with access to the court and to assure that all parties in criminal cases can pursue justice in the courts. In this era of metrics, the people of New York are entitled to a modern, flexible, evidence-based method of assessing the state’s judicial needs, as is the case in many other states and the federal judiciary. The proposed legislation would help address New York’s judicial shortfall by having the Chief Administrative Judge analyze the number of judges in each court throughout the court system and request changes when appropriate on an annual basis. This analysis and recommendation would be incorporated into the existing annual report published by the Chief Administrative Judge. This data would help inform the Legislature in carrying out its constitutional duty to set the number of judicial seats in each court, giving OCA the responsibility to initially identify the need to change the number of judicial seats.

Overview Handout

First issued November 2024; Last reissued February 2026

2026 NYS Legislative Agenda Item

ADVOCACY & RESOURCES

Ensuring Adequate Judicial Capacity in New York (Uncap Justice Act + Timely Justice Act) | Campaign Hub

BILL INFORMATION

A.3305 (AM Bores) / S.8192 (Sen. Cleare) – An act to amend the judiciary law, in relation to the sufficiency of the number of judges and justices in districts and courts (NYS 2025-26)

REPORT

REPORT ON LEGISLATION BY THE COUNCIL ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, COMMERCIAL LAW AND UNIFORM STATE LAWS COMMITTEE, ESTATE AND GIFT TAXATION COMMITTEE, LITIGATION  COMMITTEE, STATE COURTS OF SUPERIOR JURISDICTION COMMITTEE AND TORTS AND PRODUCT LIABILITY COMMITTEE

A.3305 (M. of A. Bores)
S.8192 (Sen. Cleare)

AN ACT to amend the judiciary law, in relation to the sufficiency of the number of judges and justices in districts and courts

Timely Justice Act

THIS BILL IS APPROVED

 BACKGROUND 

The New York City Bar Association supports the enactment of the Timely Justice Act, A.3305 / S.8192, which would amend the Judiciary Law to create a regular systematic assessment of the courts’ specific judicial needs in each district and require the Chief Administrative Judge to analyze the number of judges and justices in each court and request changes when appropriate. Adequate judicial resources are critical to the fair administration of justice. Therefore, a regular systematic assessment of the courts’ specific needs must be codified.

Throughout its history, New York State has struggled with an insufficient number of judicial seats necessitating stopgap measures that have resulted in a complicated and overworked court system that fails to provide justice to all. Having an adequate number of judges in each court is essential to providing civil litigants with access to the court and to assure that all parties in criminal cases can pursue justice in the courts. In this era of metrics, the people of New York are entitled to a modern, flexible, evidence-based method of assessing the state’s judicial needs, as is the case in many other states and the federal judiciary.[1] Each judicial district has its own unique needs in terms of judicial resources.  For example, matrimonial cases, commercial cases and Article 78s lead to more cases filed in New York County.  However, Bronx County has the most cases per judge, followed by Queens and Kings Counties.[2]

New York State has a multilayered judicial structure, consisting of multiple courts of varying subject matter jurisdictions. Judges are selected, elected, or appointed through various methods depending on the court. In New York, judicial resources, including the number of judges and their distribution of seats across courts, are determined initially by the State Legislature. The State Legislature passes legislation on an ad hoc basis to create new seats in specific courts. That legislation must then be signed by the Governor for the positions to be created.

To address the lack of judicial resources, the Office of Court Administration (OCA) moves judges from one court to another court on an acting basis. This “robbing Peter to pay Paul” approach further depletes courts of resources and has created a de facto permanent and large class of temporary assignments, creating adverse impacts on the courts.[3]  Currently, there is no regular assessment of the number of judges necessary to meet the demands of the New York’s courts and its litigants.  While OCA, through the Chief Administrative Judge, is required to keep data, evaluate the adequacy of current court resources and issue a report with their findings to the Legislature on an annual basis, OCA is not required to make recommendations about the number of judges needed in any courts.

WHAT THE BILL DOES

The proposed legislation would help address New York State’s judicial shortfall by having the Chief Administrative Judge analyze the number of judges in each court throughout the court system and request changes when appropriate on an annual basis. This analysis and recommendation would be incorporated into the existing annual report published by the Chief Administrative Judge. This data would help inform the Legislature in carrying out its constitutional duty to set the number of judicial seats in each court, giving OCA the responsibility to initially identify the need to change the number of judicial seats.

The specifics of how the Chief Administrative Judge would conduct his analysis of judicial resources is not outlined in the bill, providing OCA the necessary flexibility to adopt a system that works best for the court system.  One potential methodology the Chief Administrative Judge could employ would be the “weighted caseload” model created by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) in 1975.[4] The weighted caseload calculates judicial need based on total judicial workload.  “The weighted case load formula consists of three critical elements: (1) the number of cases of each type opened each year; (2) assigning case weights which represent the average amount of judicial time required to handle cases of each type over the life of the case; and (3) the amount of time each judge has available for case related work in one year.”[5] Another factor relevant to the evaluation is “clearance rates,” which is the number of disposed cases as a percentage of the incoming cases.[6] Case counts are an important factor in this evaluation, but weighting the cases is imperative.

While the relevant factors and data that could be analyzed are wide ranging and specific to the unique needs of each jurisdiction, the Timely Justice Act requires consideration of certain metrics: “the number of individuals residing in a given judicial district, the number of cases filed in each court, the complexity of such cases, the extent of delays in the disposition of cases in each court, and any other factors used by recognized national or state authorities who study the proper allocation of judicial resources.” There are many other factors that could also be considered.[7]

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

There is nothing preventing OCA from conducting this type of analysis for every court now. However, having an analysis and reporting system in place that is supported by statute will not only provide OCA with the resources it needs to conduct that analysis, but show that each branch of government is committed to a policy of statistically based judicial resourcing. An independent professional analysis that is reported to the Legislature and the public makes the process of changing the number of judges transparent.  It will also publicize important information as to the time it takes to resolve cases throughout the court system. New Yorkers have the right to know the time it takes to resolve cases, as well as their legislators’ positions on what are acceptable clearance rates in those courts.

It is important to note that this legislation would not compel the Legislature to create new judgeships and does not impact the separation of powers between the Legislature and the Judiciary. This bill merely provides data on current judicial resources and informs the Legislature to aid in making their decisions about judicial resources.  Because the Legislature must consider not only a judicial need but also other resources needed to sustain a new judicial seat, any decision by the Legislature to create a new judicial seat would not occur in a vacuum. There would have to be a proper allocation of resources to support a new judge such as sufficient staff and space, along with funding to cover the costs. There is also nothing in this bill that would prevent interested stakeholders from advocating for additional judicial resources or legislators from deviating from the number of judges recommended by OCA.[8]

***

Whether the courts are now performing at their peak efficiency should be based on data, not speculation. Each court should have the right number of judges to perform its duties and provide justice to the people of New York. We therefore urge the Legislature to pass, and the Governor to sign, the Timely Justice Act into law.

Council on Judicial Administration
James P. Chou, Chair

Commercial Law and Uniform State Laws Committee
Gizem Alper, Chair

Estate and Gift Taxation Committee
Sharon L. Klein, Chair

Litigation Committee
Cassandra L. Porsch, Chair

State Courts of Superior Jurisdiction Committee
Joseph Myer Sanderson, Chair

Torts and Product Liability Committee
John Wetmore, Jr., Chair

Reissued February 2026*