Matter of Taylor v. Sise, 33 N.Y.2d 357 (1974)

The New York State Constitution permits the legislature to increase the number of Court of Claims judges and the Appellate Division to temporarily assign those judges to the Supreme Court, even for felony trials, without violating the constitutional right to trial by elected judges.

Summary

This case addresses the constitutionality of a New York law designed to address an anticipated increase in drug felony prosecutions. The law increased the number of Court of Claims judges, who were then assigned to Supreme Court criminal parts by the Appellate Division. Petitioners, facing felony drug charges, argued that this scheme violated the constitutional requirement that Supreme Court justices be elected and infringed upon the separation of powers. The Court of Appeals upheld the law, finding that the constitution explicitly grants the legislature the power to increase the number of Court of Claims judges and permits temporary assignments to the Supreme Court.

Facts

Following Governor Rockefeller’s call for stricter drug penalties, the New York legislature passed the Emergency Dangerous Drug Control Act. This law increased the number of Court of Claims judges, allowing the Governor to appoint up to 68 additional judges. The Appellate Division then assigned these newly appointed judges to preside over criminal trials in the Supreme Court. Petitioners, indicted on drug felonies, challenged the constitutionality of these appointments and assignments.

Procedural History

Petitioners filed Article 78 proceedings challenging the authority of the acting Supreme Court Justices to preside over their trials. The Appellate Division dismissed these proceedings. The petitioners then appealed to the Court of Appeals as a matter of right.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the legislation increasing the number of Court of Claims judges and their subsequent assignment to the Supreme Court violates the constitutional provision requiring election of Supreme Court Justices.
2. Whether the provision requiring the Commissioner of the Division of Criminal Justice Services to jointly prepare a plan with the State Administrator of the Courts for the use of judicial resources violates the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

Holding

1. No, because the Constitution authorizes the legislature to increase the number of Court of Claims judges and the Appellate Division to temporarily assign them to the Supreme Court. The constitutional requirement for elected Supreme Court Justices is simply the method by which the state chooses its regular Supreme Court Justices, not a guarantee to defendants.
2. No, because the petitioners lack standing to challenge the provision as they are not directly affected by it.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the Constitution explicitly grants the Legislature the power to increase the number of Court of Claims Judges. The Constitution also authorizes the temporary assignment of Court of Claims judges to the Supreme Court, granting them the same powers as a Supreme Court Justice during the assignment. The Court emphasized that the Appellate Division’s order assigning the judges was temporary, lasting “until the further order of this Court,” satisfying the constitutional requirement. The Court deferred to the legislature’s determination that an emergency existed due to the new drug law, justifying the need for additional judges. Addressing the separation of powers argument, the Court found the petitioners lacked standing because they were not directly affected by the provision concerning the joint plan for judicial resource allocation. The Court distinguished People ex rel. Jackson v. Potter, noting that case involved irreconcilable constitutional provisions, unlike the present case where the grant of power was clear. The dissent argued that the law was an unconstitutional end-run around the requirement that Supreme Court justices be elected, and that assigning judges with nine-year terms was not a “temporary” assignment. The dissent also believed the executive branch’s involvement in judicial resource planning violated the separation of powers. The majority found no constitutional infirmity in the actions of the legislative, executive, or judicial branches, as each acted within its granted powers. The court emphasized the strong presumption that the legislature acted upon investigating the need for the legislation: “There is generally a very strong presumption that ‘the Legislature has investigated and found the existence of a situation showing or indicating the need for or desirability of the legislation’”.