New York City judges are overwhelmed with caseloads. In the Bronx, for example, there are 2,358 pending cases per Supreme Court justice. (In New York State, “Supreme Court Judges” refers not to judges of the state’s highest court, but to judges of the trial court of general jurisdiction and the four intermediate appellate courts. There are eight other trial courts: New York Civil Court, including Claims Court, Surrogate’s Court, Family Court, Housing Court and Small Claims Court; Criminal Court; District Court; County Court; and Town and Village Court.)
By comparison, outside of New York City, the number of cases per judge ranges from 135 cases per judge in the 4th Judicial District, which covers the Midwest of New York, to 436 cases per judge in the 10th Judicial District, which covers Long Island.
The overwhelming increase in New York City’s caseload has led to delays in the trial of litigants, including marital divorces, child support orders in family court, criminal court trials during Rikers Island incarceration, and delays in motions and judgments in all courts. Additionally, because Supreme Court justices serve on both New York’s trial courts and intermediate appellate courts, hearings in some appellate courts can take nearly three years.
The New York City Supreme Court’s overwhelming caseload is a result of Article 6 of the New York State Constitution, which uses population-based ratios to set the number of Supreme Court justices elected to each judicial district. That’s one judge for every 50,000 people, a number chosen over 60 years ago in 1963. This leaves the Legislature without the power to approve additional seats to meet the court’s needs driven by the number of cases filed.
The New York County Supreme Court, serving Manhattan, has one of the highest litigation filing rates in the state due to its unique location and reputation. Litigation against New York City government agencies is naturally filed here, and its commercial division attracts complex business cases from around the world, and it is widely regarded as the court of choice for matrimonial cases throughout the state.
To address the lack of resources, the State Courts Administration has adopted an interim measure to appoint judges from other courts, such as civil and criminal courts, to the Supreme Court on an “acting” basis. The number of acting Supreme Court justices sometimes exceeds the number of justices elected to the Supreme Court.
Based on the 2020 census, New York State has a population of 20.1 million people, which translates to 403 judges. Currently, the number of Supreme Court justices authorized by Congress is 364. However, the Supreme Court has more than 700 judges, both elected and “acting” judges. These transfers have reduced the number of cases per judge in places like the Bronx, but the courts from which the acting judges come are now facing their own judicial shortages.
The New York City Bar Association’s comprehensive report analyzes the need to eliminate the constitutional cap on the number of judges in each judicial district, stating that “this ‘Peter to Paul pays’ approach not only depleted judicial resources in other courts, but also created a virtually permanent and large class” of acting judges who sit on courts other than those elected by the people or appointed by the relevant appointing authority.
The New York State Assembly is considering a bill that would allow a referendum on whether to amend the New York Constitution to remove population-based limits on the number of Supreme Court justices that have been in place since 1846. Such reforms would help increase access to justice and create opportunities for greater diversity on the courts.
The proposed constitutional amendment would allow Congress to create additional Supreme Court seats as needed and budget allows. The legislatures of New York and all other states have always created a judicial branch. A constitutional amendment does not change this procedure.
In addition to eliminating the cap, the New York City Bar Association proposed creating a weighted caseload system that would periodically analyze the complexity of all cases using objective metrics, taking into account the time it takes to resolve similar cases. Objective metrics would identify where seats are needed in all courts in New York State. These would replace the population-based formulas that have been used since the 1800s to predict the number of people infected. Predicting the number of cases should no longer be done when there is data available to provide the actual numbers.
There is precedent for weighted caseload systems. The federal government and about 40 states use metrics to determine the number of judges they need. If other states can master this process, surely New York can too.
The court system is intended to serve the public. An independent analysis of the needs of the court system, and by extension the needs of the people, ensures that access to justice is not just a slogan but a reality. Voltaire once said, “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” There is no “perfect” solution, as ensuring access to justice is an ever-changing goal. But maintaining a population-based system is not the solution.
My lord. Andrea Masry is a judge on the New York State Supreme Court. She works in the commercial division of the New York County Courts and is one of the authors of the City Bar report cited in the article.
Fran Hoffinger is a partner at The Hoffinger Firm, PLLC and immediate past chair of the City Bar Council on the Administration of Justice, which sponsored the report discussed here.
Recommended citation: Hon. Andrea Masry and Fran Hoffinger, Bill could eliminate cap on number of judges in New York stateSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (May 18, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/eliminate-cap-number-judges-new-york
