Provides that when a court of appeals judge recuses themselves from sitting in or taking part in the decision, action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding, a replacement shall be chosen on a rotating basis, based on seniority, of the next available appellate division judge.
Summary
This bill amends section 9 of the Judiciary Law to address recusal procedures for judges. Under current law, judges who recuse themselves from a case generally must provide the reason for the recusal in writing or on the record, subject to exceptions when disclosure would be embarrassing or personal. The bill would carve out Court of Appeals judges from that disclosure requirement.
The bill also creates a new replacement process when a Court of Appeals judge recuses themselves. In that situation, the replacement judge would be selected on a rotating basis, using seniority, from the next available Appellate Division judge. The measure would take effect 30 days after becoming law.
Impact
The bill would change New York Judiciary Law by adding a special recusal rule for Court of Appeals judges and a mandatory replacement-selection method for those recusals. It would not alter recusal disclosure rules for other judges, but it would standardize how vacancies created by Court of Appeals recusals are filled, affecting the administration of appellate cases and the assignment of Appellate Division judges to the state’s highest court.
Sentiment
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history available with the bill materials, so no direct evidence of support or opposition is provided in the record. Based on the text alone, the bill appears procedural and administrative in nature, aimed at clarifying recusal handling and ensuring continuity in Court of Appeals decision-making.
Contention
The main policy issue is the special treatment of Court of Appeals judges compared with other judges under the recusal-disclosure rule. Another potential point of discussion is the proposed rotating, seniority-based method for selecting replacement judges, which could raise questions about fairness, transparency, and judicial independence. However, no specific objections or endorsements are documented in the available materials.
Same As
Provides that when a court of appeals judge recuses themselves from sitting in or taking part in the decision, action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding, a replacement shall be chosen on a rotating basis, based on seniority, of the next available appellate division judge.
Provides that when a court of appeals judge recuses themselves from sitting in or taking part in the decision, action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding, a replacement shall be chosen on a rotating basis, based on seniority, of the next available appellate division judge.
Provides that if a defendant dies when they have a pending appeal, such appeal shall be dismissed and the trial court's judgment shall remain in effect.
Provides that if a defendant dies when they have a pending appeal, such appeal shall be dismissed and the trial court's judgment shall remain in effect.
Provides penalties when a landlord of a residential premises refuses to rent to a potential tenant on the basis that the potential tenant was involved in a past or pending landlord-tenant action or summary proceeding.
Provides penalties when a landlord of a residential premises refuses to rent to a potential tenant on the basis that the potential tenant was involved in a past or pending landlord-tenant action or summary proceeding.
Relates to actions and proceedings seeking an abatement of rent based on violations of the housing maintenance code, applicable housing standards, the building code, or the health code; relates to the number of housing judges assigned to certain actions.