There have been times when the First Department has had serious problems with excessive delays in the issuance of decisions.1 It may be a good time for the court to take affirmative steps to prevent the problem from recurring.
These delays have been caused by justices who failed, for months, to complete their assigned writing of an opinion or dissent. When even a few of our justices hold up decisions in this manner, the resulting backlog in the court's output can quickly become a systemic problem. Yet, the only procedure by which such delays are challenged is through informal conferences called by the presiding justice for each appeal remaining open for an excessive period, a procedure pioneered by then-Presiding Justice Jonathan Lippman. That approach has had success in the past,2 but in my view, it is not enough.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
