Partner Hon. David Saxe (Ret.) Co-Authors “Strengthening the Delivery of Justice at the Appellate Division” in NYLJ

Partner Hon. David Saxe (Ret.), a former associate justice in the New York State Appellate Division, First Department, and Rolando T. Acosta, former presiding justice of the Appellate Division, recently co-authored a New York Law Journal article in which they explore several ideas and proposals that could strengthen the operation and jurisdiction of the Appellate Division, First Department.

The authors stated that with Hon. Dianne Renwick – “a dynamic and experienced judge” – at the court’s helm and the evident willingness of the new United Court System (UCS) leadership team to embrace more efficient ways of doing things, it is a good time to review the following issues:

Expediting Family Court Appeals

“It is no secret that… the standard procedure for perfecting Family Court Appeals is far too slow; it entails many months of delay between the potentially life-altering decisions of the Family Court and review by the Appellate Division, First Department,” wrote Saxe and Acosta. They recommend that “the UCS leadership team in consultation with the Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division, First Department work together to adopt a procedure that would fast-track Family Court appeals.”

A Proposal Under Which the Court of Appeals May Take Up Certified Questions of Law from the Appellate Division

Originally suggested by Judge Acosta, this procedure would resemble the process by which the Second Circuit sends certified questions to New York’s Court of Appeals. “Under this proposal, conflicting rulings from different Departments of the Appellate Division – or even different panels from the same department – could be resolved, on an expedited basis, by a determination from the Court of Appeals.”

Expanding Appellate Division Authority to Include Interest of Justice Jurisdiction in Article 78 Proceedings

Article 78 in its current form has generally functioned well as a vehicle to challenge arbitrariness and caprice in the government’s treatment of its citizens. “Its standard of review, permitting courts to remedy determinations that are arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, attempts to balance the protection of individuals with the need to allow government agencies to exercise an appropriate degree of discretion in performing their assigned functions,” they wrote. They point to a few cases, however, to illustrate that “there are times when the existing statutory framework does not permit an agency determination to be modified even where that determination seems manifestly excessive or unjust.”

Subscribers to New York Law Journal may read the full article here.