Werfel v. Agresta, 68 N.Y.2d 819 (1986)
When two statutes appear to conflict, courts must attempt to harmonize them, giving effect to both if a reasonable field of operation can be found for each; repeal by implication is disfavored.
Summary
This case addresses the apparent conflict between Judiciary Law § 299 (requiring court reporters to provide free transcripts to judges) and Judiciary Law § 302 (allowing court reporters to charge fees for transcripts). The Court of Appeals held that § 299 was not implicitly repealed by § 302. It reasoned that the statutes could be harmonized by interpreting § 302 to apply to expedited or daily transcripts requiring extraordinary effort, while § 299 applies to regular transcripts prepared under ordinary circumstances. This ensures both statutes remain viable and effective.
Facts
Plaintiffs, senior court reporters, challenged directives issued by the Chief Administrator of the Courts and a District Administrative Judge. These directives encouraged judges to order transcripts for free under Judiciary Law § 299, limiting paid requests under § 302 to specific situations like daily copy, expedited transcripts, plea minutes, and sentencing minutes. The court reporters argued that § 299 was no longer valid and that the directives unconstitutionally deprived them of property.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs sued for a declaratory judgment that Judiciary Law § 299 was void and the directives were illegal. The Supreme Court initially found the statutes not in conflict and § 299 constitutional but ruled the directives interfered with judicial discretion. The Appellate Division reversed, holding the statutes irreconcilable and § 299 impliedly repealed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether Judiciary Law § 302, as amended, impliedly repealed Judiciary Law § 299, creating an irreconcilable conflict between the two statutes regarding court reporter compensation for transcripts requested by judges.
Holding
No, because the two statutes can be harmonized by interpreting § 302 to apply to requests imposing extraordinary demands, like daily or expedited copy, while § 299 applies to regular transcripts furnished under ordinary circumstances.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that repeals by implication are disfavored. A statute is only deemed impliedly repealed if the two are so conflicting that both cannot be given effect. The court highlighted that legislative intent is paramount and that the continued amendment of § 299 indicated a clear legislative intent to maintain its viability. Furthermore, the Court found a reasonable field of operation for each statute. Quoting Moynahan v. City of New York, 205 N.Y. 181, the court suggested that § 302 applies when judges request transcripts with the extraordinary demand of daily or expedited copy. In contrast, § 299 applies to regular transcripts supplied under ordinary circumstances after proceedings conclude. The court stated: “If a reasonable field of operation can be found for each statute, that construction should be adopted”. The Court rejected the argument that the directives constituted an unconstitutional usurpation of authority, stating that the statutes themselves, not the defendants, dictate when compensation is due. The court also noted that the judiciary should not lightly infer that the Legislature has repealed one of its own enactments when it has failed to do so expressly.