Authors: Alfred A. Lindseth and Eric A. Hanushek
State High Court & Judicial Nominating Commission | Composition & Terms of Judicial Nominating Commission | Judicial Selection Process | Legal Authority |
---|---|---|---|
*2 lawyers and 2 non-lawyers Terms: 4 years (varied) |
General
Interim Vacancies
|

Percentage of Lawyers on the Nominating Commission

Who Selects the Nominating Commissioners?
Latest News
- New York Court Strikes Down CDPAP Reimbursement Changes - Holland & Knight
- Lawsuit charges that NYS courts discriminate against blind jurors in the grand jury system - Brooklyn Daily Eagle
- Supreme Court upholds Biden rule requiring serial numbers and background checks for ghost guns - Santa Fe New Mexican
- A Musk Lawsuit in Wisconsin Is the Backdrop to the State’s Supreme Court Race - The New York Times
- Gov. Hochul praises Supreme Court’s ruling to uphold ghost gun regulations - Brooklyn Daily Eagle
- Supreme Court Says the Government Can Regulate Ghost Guns - Rolling Stone
- Supreme Court affirms Biden-era ghost gun rule - New York Post
- Supreme Court upholds Biden-era ghost gun regulations - Straight Arrow News
- Supreme Court Upholds Biden Administration’s Limits on ‘Ghost Guns’ - The New York Times
- Trump asks Supreme Court for OK to cut teacher-training money as part of anti-DEI push - PIX11 New York News
Scholarship & White Papers
-
New York State’s Highest Court Reverses Major Tort Award in World Trade Center Bombing Litigation
On September 22, 2011, the New York State Court of Appeals issued a decision reversing a major tort award. In In re World Trade Center Bombing Litigation Steering Committee v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey,1 the basic underlying facts were not in dispute. The Port Authority was a public entity created in a 1921 compact between New York and New Jersey to oversee critical centers of commerce, trade, and transportation hubs (e.g., airports, bridges, tunnels, etc). It is a financially self-reliant public entity.2 One of the properties it developed, constructed, and operated was the World Trade Center. The Port Authority operated a security force of forty police officers within the confines of the World Trade Center.
-
New York’s Highest Court Narrows the Assumption of Risk Defense to Tort Liability
On April 6, 2010, the New York State Court of Appeals rejected use of the assumption of the risk doctrine to nullify a school district’s duty to supervise the children within its care.1 The ruling would likely have been uncontroversial if the majority had limited its pronouncements to those necessary to resolve the present dispute: a child cannot assume the risk of injuries from “horseplay” enabled by his teachers’ failure to supervise him. This proposition provided the basis for the unanimous judgment in Trupia v. Lake George Central School District disallowing the defense in that case. However, the court split 4-3 in its reasoning, with the minority concurrence decrying the “extended dictum” in which the majority reconceived and narrowed the defense of assumption of the risk in New York State.
-
New York’s Highest Court Backtracks on Property Owners’ Rights in Eminent Domain Case
In In re Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corp., New York State used its power of eminent domain to seize property that would be included in a private developer’s twenty-two-acre mixed-use development project.1 The project was to include a sports arena for a professional basketball team and numerous high rise buildings, the latter of which would serve both commercial and residential purposes.