Relates to a death benefit option for the wife of deceased justice Jerry Garguilo

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Anthony H. Palumbo says this is needed

Justice Garguilo was a long-serving Justice of the New York Supreme Court, holding several important administrative roles, including service on the Appellate Term. On the bench, he was a true titan, overseeing New York State's opioid litigation, one of the largest mass tort cases in the State's history. As the coordinating judge, Garguilo was instrumental in guiding the litigation process, ensuring that the cases were handled efficiently and fairly. A coordinated proceeding is one where cases throughout the State are transferred from their venue of origin to another court to be presided over by a single judge (the "Coordinating Court"). Uniformity is the goal in that the Coordinating Court decides all substantive and proce- dural issues as opposed to having potentially differing and conflicting rulings from multiple venues. Under his leadership, the opioid litigation in New York became a land- mark case, drawing national attention as it sought to hold pharmaceu- tical companies accountable for their role in the opioid epidemic. His successful management of the coordinated proceeding was seen as a model for handling similar mass tort cases. This historic litigation involved 62 counties, 10 cities including New York, more than 67 smaller municipal corporations (townships, villages and the like) and eventually the State of New York. The named defendants included manufacturers, distributors and large retail pharmacies. In total forty (40) defendants were named. Participating lawyers during both pre-trial and trial, at times exceeded 100, either in person or remotely. No traditional court facility could accommodate the volume and eventually the auditorium at Touro Law School was converted into a courtroom to accommodate the enormous and complex litigation. The case also involved 357 motion sequences producing over 350 written decisions and/or directives.

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.