Relates to service by former housing court judges of the New York city civil court as judicial hearing officers

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why the sponsor says this is needed

In 1983, on the recommendation of the Judiciary and the Lindsay Commit- tee,{2} the Legislature created the quasi-judicial office of Judicial Hearing Officer ("JHO"). See Judiciary Law Art. 22. Following desig- nation as a JHO by the Chief Administrator of the Courts, a former judge could be assigned to serve as a referee in civil and criminal liti- gation. Id. To qualify for such designation, a person would need to: (i) have served as a judge or justice of a court of record of the Unified Court System{3} but no longer be in judicial service; and (ii) have the mental and physical capacity to perform the duties of a JHO. Judiciary Law § 850. Also, the Chief Administrator must have determined that the services of such former judge or justice were "necessary to expedite the business of the courts." Id. This bill would extend eligibility to serve as JHOs to former housing judges of the Housing Part of the New York City Civil Court. While these officers are referred to in statute as "judges" (see New York City Civil Court Act § 110(e)), they technically are not judges of the Unified Court System, but instead quasi-judicial officers because no reference is made to their office in Article VI of the State Constitution. See Met Council v. Crosson, 84 NY2d 328 (1994). Nonetheless, by statute, their quasi-judicial functions in presiding over proceedings in the Housing Part of the Civil Court are effectively judicial functions. See New York City Civil Court Act § 110(e) {providing that actions and proceedings in the Housing Part "shall be tried before civil court judges, acting civil court judges , and housing judges" (emphasis added))}; Glass v. Thomp- son, 51 AD2d 69 (2d Dept., 1976) {finding that housing judges (then called "hearing officers") exercised judicial functions when presiding over housing matters}. Hence, in terms of their experience as jurists, former housing judges may be considered no less qualified than Article VI Judges of the Civil Court for deployment as JHOs. Accordingly, making them eligible for JHO designation will provide the Judiciary with a wealth of talent and experience that can be tapped to help address the large caseloads faced daily by the courts. 6.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.