Requires more specific data reporting by the chief administrator to include information relating to all courts in the unified court system, including town and village courts.
S01849 expands the Judiciary Law’s court-data reporting requirements. It directs the chief administrator of the courts to prepare, compile, publish, and publicly post more detailed data on family offense matters, misdemeanor offenses, violations, and landlord-tenant eviction matters. The bill specifically requires that this information be collected across all courts in the unified court system, including town and village courts to the greatest extent practicable, and that the data be broken out by county and individual court in the categories specified by the bill.
The bill also adds a new reporting category for landlord-initiated eviction filings and tenant-initiated filings, requiring monthly counts and additional details such as whether the matter involved nonpayment or holdover, the amount of any money judgment, whether counsel was present, the type of tenant relief sought, and the disposition of the case. It further requires the chief administrator to include these new data sets in annual reports to the Legislature and Governor and to post them online in a machine-readable format, updated monthly. The act would take effect two years after becoming law.
The bill amends section 212 of the Judiciary Law to broaden the scope of mandatory court-data collection and publication by the Office of Court Administration. It extends reporting obligations beyond the higher-volume courts to include town and village courts where practicable, and it requires more granular public reporting for family offense, misdemeanor, violation, and eviction-related matters. It also creates a new statutory mandate for data on landlord-tenant proceedings and requires machine-readable public posting, which would affect court administration, data systems, and reporting practices statewide.
The available voting history suggests generally favorable support for the bill. It passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously, advanced through the Senate Finance Committee with a majority vote, and received a clear majority on final Senate passage. The lack of committee transcripts limits insight into debate, but the vote pattern indicates broad agreement on improving transparency and public access to court data.
The main likely points of contention are administrative burden, feasibility, and the scope of requiring reporting from town and village courts. The bill repeatedly qualifies those courts’ obligations with “to the greatest extent practicable,” suggesting concern about whether all local courts have the staffing, systems, or uniform procedures needed to comply. Another possible issue is the breadth of the data collection mandate, especially for sensitive family offense and eviction matters, where confidentiality, sealing, and record-sharing rules must be balanced against public reporting. The recorded votes show some opposition at the Finance Committee and on the Senate floor, indicating that while the bill had broad support, not all members agreed on the costs or implementation demands.