MESSAGE
| DATE | 2005-07-03 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Fair Elections: Who the heck are these guys!?
|
Bill to Alter Court Is Assailed in Brooklyn
* E-Mail This
* Printer-Friendly
* Reprints
By JONATHAN P. HICKS
Published: July 3, 2005
In a legislative session dominated by talk of reform, lawmakers took one
quiet step that has alarmed several New York City politicians: they
created a second judge seat for the Surrogate's Court in Brooklyn that
many officials fear could be a vehicle for patronage.
For the last few days elected officials and political candidates have
condemned the bill to establish the additional seat in Surrogate's
Court, calling it an unnecessary and politically motivated move.
Last month, the Legislature passed a bill that would establish a number
of new judgeships throughout the state, among them are new positions in
Queens and the second surrogate position in Brooklyn.
But the Brooklyn judgeship has been widely criticized, in part because,
under the bill, the position would not be officially created until
August, making it too late for candidates to collect petition signatures
and run in the September primary. Instead, the executives of the
political parties will select the candidates to appear on the ballot. In
Brooklyn, which is overwhelmingly Democratic, selection by the
Democratic Party would be tantamount to election.
"It's an outrage," said Arnold Kriss, a candidate for district attorney
in Brooklyn and a former lawyer and former deputy commissioner of the
New York Police Department.
"The Legislature and governor created another potential patronage
headache in Brooklyn," Mr. Kriss said. "I don't see that there is any
need for such a court. I don't remember any public cry, either in the
law circles or in the public, to create a whole new position in the
judiciary."
Some politicians said they objected strongly to the fact that Brooklyn
voters could not vote on the position.
"I support judges being appointed and if that can't happen, they should
be elected," said City Councilman David Yassky, a Democrat in Brooklyn
who was formerly a professor at the Brooklyn Law School.
"I don't think judges should be appointed by party leaders," Mr. Yassky
said. "There are different ways to select judges. But the worst is
selection by party leaders." Mr. Yassky said that the Legislature
improved its performance this year, citing its first on-time budget
agreement in years. "But this was a real example of backsliding."
Once called the Widows and Orphans Court, the Surrogate's Court is
familiar to those few voters who deal with estates and adoptions. But
politicians know it as a last bastion of patronage, funneling hundreds
of thousands of dollars a year to lawyers who serve as guardians and
conservators in thousands of estate cases.
The move to create a new surrogate position came a week before the
state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, upheld the removal of Judge
Michael H. Feinberg, the surrogate judge in Brooklyn, for awarding $8.6
million in legal fees to a longtime friend to handle the legal matters
of people who died with no wills.
Still, several Brooklyn legislators defended the creation of a second
surrogate position, saying the city's most populous borough should have
two such judgeships, particularly since there were two in Manhattan.
The bill to create the new judgeship has been widely viewed in Albany as
a move to create a position for Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol, a Democrat
who has represented Greenpoint and Williamsburg, Brooklyn, since 1972.
In an interview Friday, Mr. Lentol said he planned to be a candidate for
the position and said that the creation of a second surrogate position
in Brooklyn was a reasonable action by the Legislature.
"I think that is something that is needed because the caseload in
Brooklyn requires the attention of two judges," Mr. Lentol said. "I
think this will be a good thing for the people of Brooklyn."
Mr. Lentol said that he had no discussions with either leaders of the
Brooklyn Democratic organization or the Assembly about creating the
position. "This was something that was done by the leadership of the two
houses of the Legislature and the governor. I was not involved."
Several legislators pointed out that the bill that was passed by the
Legislature had created several positions beyond the surrogate judgeship
in Brooklyn. And they added that there was no reason to object to the
one position in Brooklyn when there were so many others throughout the
state.
The bill, which Gov. George E. Pataki intends to sign, will create four
positions on the State Supreme Court, 14 on the Court of Claims, an
additional county court clerk in Rensselaer County and a Family Court
judgeship in Orange County, in addition to the position in Brooklyn.
Nonetheless, there was still criticism of the Brooklyn surrogate
position and its selection process.
"We believe that any system that deprives the voters of the choice is
problematic, legally and democratically," said Jeremy Creelan, associate
counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.
Mr. Creelan, who was one of the authors of a report issued by the
Brennan Center that criticized how the Legislature functions in Albany,
said: "The voters should decide. And we're skeptical of any other
mechanism that the Legislature would put into place."
Next Article in New York Region (10 of 18) >
Order an Online Edition of The NY Times & Read at Your Leisure
|
|
