By Michele Evans / NYweeklyRecord.com / Date: 7/17/2026
Category: Courts / Court Administration / Judicial Accountability
NEW YORK CITY, NY – Forty-nine New York Supreme Court justices are asking to remain on the bench beyond the state’s mandatory retirement age of 70, placing a powerful and largely private court-review process under fresh public scrutiny.
Certification can extend a Supreme Court justice’s service for two years at a time, with as many as three extensions available before the judge reaches age 76. The process can preserve experienced judges and help an overloaded court system, but it also decides who continues exercising enormous power over criminal cases, civil disputes, liberty, property, and public trust.
The Administrative Board of the Courts makes those decisions. The board consists of New York’s chief judge and the presiding justices of the four Appellate Division departments. The Court of Appeals has described the board’s authority as very nearly unfettered, language that underscores both the breadth of its discretion and the need for meaningful public accountability.
Yet the court system does not publicly announce who was approved, who was denied, why a decision was made, or even basic statistics showing how often certification is refused. Public comments are accepted, but the submissions remain confidential. A process with this much authority should not leave New Yorkers guessing about its standards or results.
The Center for Community Alternatives has asked the board to deny certification to Justices Mario F. Mattei, Timothy P. Mazzei, Thomas E. Moran, and Laura A. Ward. In a 24-page public comment, the organization cited appellate reversals involving sentences, suppression and evidentiary rulings, jury-related errors, and procedural safeguards.
CCA also pointed to rare cases in which appellate courts directed that further proceedings be handled by different judges. Its letter argues that the number and character of the reversals raise serious concerns about continued service. Those are the organization’s conclusions, not established findings that any of the four judges is incompetent or committed misconduct.
The records described by CCA include appellate reductions of sentences characterized as excessive, corrections of unlawful sentencing structures, reversals involving suppression questions, and errors affecting juries or a defendant’s right to a fair proceeding. Gothamist reported that supporters of at least one judge defended his fairness and professionalism, a reminder that a complete review should consider the full record, not only selected decisions.
An appellate reversal does not, by itself, prove bias, bad faith, incompetence, or judicial misconduct. Trial judges make difficult rulings in contested cases, and appellate courts exist in part to correct legal error. But patterns, repeated errors, and extraordinary reassignments can still be relevant information when the state is deciding whether to grant service beyond the constitutional retirement point.
Gothamist also reported that one of the 49 applicants had been censured by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct for concealing a $50,000 loan. That reported disciplinary history is distinct from CCA’s appellate analysis and should be evaluated on its own verified record, with the affected judge given a fair opportunity to respond.
No certification decisions have been announced. That makes this the moment for the court system to explain its standards, publish basic outcome data, and provide reasons that protect legitimate confidentiality without turning public power into a black box. The question is not whether judges deserve dignity. It is whether New Yorkers deserve to know how the judges who judge everyone else are judged.
Sources
Gothamist: 49 Aging NY Judges Want More Time on the Bench. Reformers Are Worried About 4.
Center for Community Alternatives: Public Comment on Justices Mattei, Mazzei, Moran, and Ward
Queens Daily Eagle: New York’s Top Court Hears Judicial Age Limit Case
Leave a Reply