1917-2017 Court of Appeals Hall Centennial

1917-2017 Court of Appeals Hall Centennial Court of Appeals Hall, circa 1920 FOREWORD Chief Judge Janet DiFiore As reported by Albany’s Times Union, on January 8, 1917, “Court of Appeals Hall,” the renamed and renovated building at 20 Eagle Street, was dedicated to the administration of justice. That same day, the Court was called into Session and heard arguments for the first time in its new home. The building and its courtroom are a majestic display of architecture, craftsmanship and history. The Richardson courtroom, with its elaborate hand -carved oak paneling, furniture, and marble and onyx fireplace, is considered one of the finest 19th century governmental chambers. The distinctive front steps, where generations of judges and attorneys have stood, are also stunning. Judges’ chambers, the sweeping three-story rotunda, and many other areas of the building display an understated elegance that has endured for a century. As magnificent as the building and the courtroom are – and they are magnificent – they are but one part of this extraordinary institution. We cannot overlook the distinguished attorneys who appear in the courtroom, the groundbreaking and important cases they argue, the enduring precedent set by the Court, and the Judges who have sat and now sit with distinction on the grand bench. All of these pieces, working together, advance the dedication to the administration of justice that was heralded at 20 Eagle Street one hundred years ago. It is my honor to celebrate Court of Appeals Hall on its centennial anniversary. The pages that follow offer a glimpse of the 1917 Court – the building, courtroom, Judges, cases and counsel. In 2017, my colleagues and I proudly rededicate Court of Appeals Hall to the administration of justice. We will earnestly endeavor to preserve Court of Appeals Hall and we warmly extend an invitation to visit the Court, as we gladly share the grandeur of this institution with the public we serve. STATE HALL 20 Eagle Street The building at 20 Eagle Street was designed by Henry Rector, completed in 1842 and originally housed state offices. The building was known as “State Hall” and the “State House.” From 1884 to 1916, the Court of Appeals heard oral argument in a courtroom designed by H.H. Richardson on the third floor of the Capitol. In 1916, the state offices at 20 Eagle Street were moved to other locations and State Architect Lewis F. Pilcher designed a rear addition to State Hall that would accommodate the courtroom and a library. Extension built to accommodate the Richardson Courtroom and library COURT OF APPEALS HALL Courtroom Relocation Upon completion of the addition, the Richardson Courtroom and its contents, including the onyx and bronze fireplace and a hand-carved clock, were moved from the third floor of the Capitol to 20 Eagle Street. The woodwork paneling had to be moved piece by piece. The elaborately carved bench, with gargoyle heads on its front, was also relocated. On January 8, 1917, the building at 20 Eagle Street was dedicated as “Court of Appeals Hall” and that same day oral argument was heard in the Richardson Courtroom at Court of Appeals Hall for the first time. Richardson Courtroom, Court of Appeals THE COURT 1917 Composition Under the 1870 New York Constitution, the Court of Appeals was composed of a Chief Judge and six Associate Judges, each chosen by election and holding office for -14 year terms. The mandatory retirement age was 70. Five Judges formed a quorum and four were necessary for a decision. In 1899, a constitutional amendment was adopted to address a large backlog of Court of Appeals cases. The amendment permitted the Governor, at the request of a majority of the Judges of the Court, to designate up to four Justices of the Supreme Court to serve as Associate Judges of the Court of Appeals. Beginning in 1900, “ex officio” Judges were thus designated to serve on the Court of Appeals. From 1900 to 1923, the Court’s membership varied from seven to ten Judges, although only seven Judges were permitted to sit on each case. Conference Room, Court of Appeals, circa 1921 THE COURT 1917 Judges Chief Judge Frank Harris Hiscock (Ex Officio 1906-1913; Court of Appeals 1914 -1916; Chief Judge 1917-1926) Ex OfficioEmory A. Chase (1906-1920; Associate Judge 1921) Associate Judge Frederick Collin (1910-1920) Associate Judge William H. Cuddeback (1913-1919) Associate Judge John W. Hogan (1913-1923) Associate Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo (1914-1926; Chief Judge 1927-1932) Associate Judge Cuthbert W. Pound (1915-1931; Chief Judge 1932-1934) Associate Judge Chester B. McLaughlin (1917-1926) Ex Officio Frederick E. Crane (1917-1920; Associate Judge 1920-1934; Chief Judge 1934-1939) Ex OfficioWilliam S. Andrews (1917-1921; Associate Judge 1921-1928) Chief Judge Hiscock, Chambers Judge Pound, Court of Appeals steps THE CASES Enduring Precedent Approximately 800 cases were reported as decided in 1921; less than 200 of these were decided with a written opinion from the Court. 1917 cases of important precedential significance: DeCicco v Schweizer (221 NY 431). In an opinion by Judge Cardozo, the Court held that a contract between a son-in-law and his wife’s parents for a promised annual dowry payment was valid and enforceable by the wife even though the promise was from the father-in-law to the son-in-law, as the promise was intended for the benefit of the wife and she had a right to adopt and enforce the promise and by doing so made herself a party to the contract. Interestingly, counsel for the father-in-law was Willard Bartlett, who served as a Judge on the Court of Appeals, and was the Court’s Chief Judge from 1914 to 1916 – the year before the case was argued and decided. Wood v Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon (222 NY 88). This case is familiar to most law students for the proposition that a promise is sufficient consideration for a contract. The plaintiff was a successful New York advertiser who contracted with defendant, Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon (a major fashion designer, also known as a stage actress and survivor of the sinking of the Titanic), for an exclusive right to market products with her endorsement, with half of the profits going to defendant. Defendant, however, marketed her own line of clothing with Sears Roebuck, the sales of which did not profit plaintiff at all. The question before the Court was whether plaintiff’s promise to give half of the profits from the endorsed products to defendant was sufficient consideration. In an opinion by Judge Cardozo, the Court held that the promise to represent defendant’s interests was sufficient consideration. Judge Cardozo, Court of Appeals steps THE CASES Enduring Precedent Tauza v Susquehanna Coal Co. (220 NY 259). In exercising general jurisdiction over a Pennsylvania corporation (headquartered in Philadelphia, with a branch office in New York City under the direction of a sales agent, with eight salesman and clerical assistants who systematically and regularly solicited and obtained orders resulting in shipments from the coal yards in Pennsylvania to New York), the Court held that if a corporation “is in a state not occasionally or casually, but with a fair measure of permanence and continuity, then, whether its business is interstate or local, it is within the jurisdiction of our courts” (Opn. by Cardozo, J., 220 NY at 268). Matter of Rouss (221 NY 81). In an attorney discipline proceeding, the Court held that disbarment proceedings are not criminal in nature. Judge Cardozo’s opinion is often cited for the proposition “Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A fair private and professional character is one of them” (id. at 84). Weigand v United Traction Co. (221 NY 39). In a personal injury action, a pedestrian claimed that she did not see an approaching trolley car that was in full view. The Court held that the pedestrian’s statement that she did not see the trolley car was incredible as a matter of law, and this case is frequently cited for the proposition that an individual is “bound to see what by the proper use of her senses she might have seen” (id. at 42). THE CASES Enduring Precedent Marhoffer v Marhoffer (220 NY 543). Frequently cited for the proposition that workers compensation is compensation for the inability to work and the loss of one’s earning power, not for damages from the actual injury or resulting disability id.( at 546). Matter of McKelway (221 NY 15). In a proceeding involving the estate of St. Clair McKelway, who was the Regent of the State of New York and a Chancellor of the Board of Regents as well as the Editor of the Brooklyn Eagle at the height of its influence, the Court held and the case is often cited for the proposition that a transfer tax is applicable to one half of the total personal property passed to the surviving joint tenant (id. at 17-18). Judge Crane, Chambers THE CASES 1917 Cases Recently Cited by the Court of Appeals People v Van Every (222 NY 74) was cited as an historical reference as recently as 2016. In People v Guerrero (28 NY3d 110), Judge Rivera noted that the legislative purpose of CPL 200.70 was to change the strict common law rule that forbade even minor changes to an indictment (Rivera, J. dissenting [also noting that the Legislature passed CPL 200.70 in response to this Court’s decision in People v Van Every, which dismissed an indictment for legal impossibility because it stated that the crime occurred on a future date]).

Load more