New York Senate Bill S10331

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

Caption

Requires the advice and consent of the city council when the New York City mayor is appointing judges for family court and city-wide criminal courts.

Summary

S10331 is a proposed constitutional amendment affecting the appointment process for certain New York City judges. It would require the Mayor of New York City to obtain the advice and consent of the City Council when appointing Family Court judges within the city and judges of the city-wide criminal court. The measure also preserves the existing ten-year terms for those judges and leaves unchanged the election-based selection of Family Court judges outside New York City and the election of city-wide civil court judges. Because the bill amends the state constitution, it would change Article 6, sections 13 and 15, rather than ordinary statute. If approved by the Legislature and then ratified by voters after the required publication period, it would add a City Council confirmation step to mayoral judicial appointments in New York City, increasing local legislative involvement in the selection of those judges.

Impact

The bill would alter the New York Constitution’s judicial selection provisions for New York City by inserting City Council advice-and-consent requirements for mayoral appointments to Family Court and city-wide criminal court judgeships. It would not change the term length for those judges, but it would create an additional check on executive appointment power and could affect the timing, negotiation, and political balance of judicial appointments in the city. The proposal does not affect judges outside New York City or the election method for city-wide civil court judges.

Sentiment

No committee transcript or recorded vote is provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a governance and accountability reform, likely appealing to those favoring greater legislative oversight of judicial appointments. At the same time, it may draw concern from those who prefer to preserve the mayor’s existing appointment authority or who view additional confirmation as politicizing the judicial selection process.

Contention

The main point of contention is the shift in appointment power from the mayor alone to a shared process requiring City Council consent. Supporters would likely argue that confirmation improves transparency, accountability, and checks and balances in selecting judges who serve New York City. Opponents may argue that it could slow appointments, increase political bargaining, and reduce executive flexibility. A secondary issue is that the bill targets only certain New York City courts, which may raise questions about consistency in judicial selection across different courts and jurisdictions.