Top Five Surprises and Disappointments Impacting New York Law in 2008

For the first time since I started writing this blawg, I am presenting my own end-of-the-year list.  Today's list is:

The Top Five Surprises and Disappointments Impacting New York Law

5. The Commission on Judicial Nomination does not recommend Judge Carmen Ciparick (or any other qualified woman, for that matter).

Read article here regarding New York Governor Patterson's reaction to the seven nominations.

4. Appellate Division, Third Department Justice Anthony Carpinello loses election.

An experienced, intellectual powerhouse loses his seat likely due to his position on the Republican ticket in the year of Barack Obama (see article). 

3. The New York Legislature passes law that changes New York from a "no-prejudice" state to a state that requires insurers to demonstrate material prejudice when insureds provide late notice of a claim.

The long-standing rule is toppled by S. 8610/A. 11541, changing New York to a prejudice state.

2. Chief Judge Judith Kaye is forced to retire based on outmoded 70-year-old age limit.

Here is an article about the Chief's retirement.

1. Former-New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's resignation.

Please feel free to provide more disappointments and surprises in the comments section.

Comments

[Dan O'Brien]

Your blog is a bit disappointing.
How's that?

It appears that you are not trying to be fair, when you blog about law. No one should be surprised, but it should be noted.

There is nothing outmoded about the 70 year old age limit on judges, except for the judges themselves.

While not the intent of the law requiring judges to step down at a certain age it is appropriate that judges be able to relate to the people they serve. Unfortunately we all lose a degree of mental plasticity as we age and there is no benefit to society, in either the labor market or the courtroom, to keeping a judge on the bench until they die.

Clearly, you care little for the diligent younger people working harder than ever to attain positions of responsibility in our society. If you did care, you'd see that past a certain age, all you are doing is benefiting the individual by allowing them to retain a position of importance.

Furthermore, it is quite like a modern day republican to assert that an elected official lost an election, not because there was a better man for the job, but because there was a political agenda to eliminate republicans. Please remember that your party held tight control over the political landscape only eight years ago. If in fact there is such an agenda, it is solely due to your parties proven inadequacies, and said agenda is held by exactly the right people - the public.

I'll admit that I wouldn't want to be a republican these days, but that shame you ought to feel is well deserved. Not all republicans lay in the corruption that is rife within your party, but being a member of the party while you reap the rewards of your fellow's misdeeds entitles you to experience a full portion of the punishment when that time comes as well.

The shame over the republican party is well deserved and you'd do best to note that. The only people left on the planet who seem to think otherwise are, of course, die hard republicans. The sooner you admit your political err the sooner the public will forgive you.

By all means, keep going the way you are going, democrats don't mind.

[Roy Mura]

Huh? Is that the very definition of a non sequitur or WHAT? Wow.

This person obviously doesn't employ any 20-somethings (though [s]he, I'd be willing to bet real money, is in that age range him[er]self). From my read of Judge Kayes' daily schedule, she'd run circles -- literally and figuratively -- around me and everyone in my office every day. TBH, IDK and IDC whether Judge Kaye knows ZUP with the young folk. DM. She is (or was) a judge, not a therapist, 4COL. GMAB.

Forget the political ideology, Dan. Your zeal notwithstanding and although to err is human, rue the grammar. And spelling. And punctuation. Not the post.