First up for Di Mango and the additional judges—described by Lippman in an interview as a judicial "SWAT team"—will be the 271 felony cases that are three years old or older.
In all, the Bronx has 931 felony cases that are two years or older, compared to 217 pending cases that old in Manhattan, which has the next largest backlog.
The Bronx has 3,690 felony cases—73 percent of the total—that are older than six months, which is the benchmark used by the court system to evaluate performance in superior courts.
That compares to 44 percent of pending felonies exceeding the standard in Manhattan, 48 percent in Brooklyn, 52 percent in Queens and 25 percent on Staten Island.
In the new part, cases will be tried in the Bronx, with the volunteer judges availing themselves to "unused and renovated courthouse space," said Lippman.
Apart from the influx of volunteers, Lippman said the courts would be "instituting strict case management practices," such as shorter adjournments, earlier return dates, the appointment of case coordinators and the centralized drafting of motion decisions.
Currently, 31 judges handle felony matters in the Bronx while 14 preside over misdemeanor cases.
Lippman noted in his speech that in the long run "a sufficient number of judges is essential for the court to be able to effectively manage its formidable caseloads."
The court system assigned some new judges to the Bronx earlier this month after Mayor Michael Bloomberg appointed Criminal Court judges, Lippman said. More judicial appointments from the city are expected in the coming months "and when they are made we will use that opportunity to assign additional judges to that court, while making sure that the present judicial levels are, at the very least, maintained in the other boroughs—so they can continue their own successes in reducing their older caseloads."
Lippman said after his speech that the goal of the new initiative is to "at least" make the Bronx's felony backlog levels comparable to the other boroughs.
Subscribe to New York Law Journal
-
Michael
Over 2 year wait for trial. I wonder if the dopey Judges will charge that time to the "People" for speedy trial purposes? 6 months from arraignment to felony trial, yet they admit a backlog from 2-3 years. Seems logic, common sense and the LAW would indicate the easy and legal way to end the backlog, is grant the speedy trial motions sua sponte, since there is no 'reasonable excuse' that can be used to charge the time to the defendants. Of course, the Judges will skirt the speedy trial rule, and convince the mostly poor and indigent defendants to plea to jail time, when the fact is all these cases should be dismissed.
-
Former Criminal Defense
It was obvious from the beginning that the merger would do nothing more than clog already congested court calendars, as Supreme Court judges would now have to preside over Class A and B misdemeanors and violations IN ADDITION to the serious felony crimes. The merger was a ridiculous experiment that only infringed on defendants' rights to a speedy trial in the Bronx.
-
Former Criminal Defense
It was obvious from the beginning that the merger would do nothing more than clog already congested court calendars, as Supreme Court judges would now have to preside over Class A and B misdemeanors and violations IN ADDITION to the serious felony crimes. The merger was a ridiculous experiment that only infringed on defendants' rights to a speedy trial in the Bronx.
-
Former Criminal Defense
It was obvious from the beginning that the merger would do nothing more than clog already congested court calendars, as Supreme Court judges would now have to preside over Class A and B misdemeanors and violations IN ADDITION to the serious felony crimes. The merger was a ridiculous experiment that only infringed on defendants' rights to a speedy trial in the Bronx.
Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.
Reader Comments