Chief judge jonathan lippman biography

When are polls open? Who Represents Me? Trending Election results Presidential election Presidential candidates general election voter turnout Ballotpedia's top 15 ballot measures and trends to watch in Ballotpedia News. How do I update a page? Election results Send us candidate contact info. Privacy policy About Ballotpedia Disclaimers Login.

Federal courts State courts Local courts. Current judges. Former judges. FeinmanVictoria A. PigottSusan ReadRobert S. SmithLeslie E. He has been credited with persuading the state legislature to double the financing of the court system and pass other reform measures creating special purpose courts and updating the jury system. Under Chief Judge Lippman, the number of non-unanimous rulings made by the Court of Appeals has been on the rise.

When wearing his hat as Chief Judge of the State of New York, Lippman has been a consistent advocate for increased attention to civil legal services. Lippman stepped down as Chief Judge on December 31,having reached the mandatory retirement age of Contents move to sidebar hide. Article Talk. Read Edit View history. Tools Tools. Download as PDF Printable version.

In other projects. Wikidata item. American judge. Previous Previous post: George L. Next Next post: James B. No products in the cart. In Bazakos v. Lewis12 N. The duty here implicated does not arise from what is reasonably susceptible of characterization as a doctor patient relationship, i. That is ordinary negligence. These exams, far from being independent in any ordinary sense of the word, are paid for and frequently controlled in their scope and conduct by legal adversaries of the examinee.

In Runner v. New York Stock Exch.

Chief judge jonathan lippman biography: Jonathan Lippman (born May 19,

In so doing, he applied a practical test to implement the policy purpose served by the statute, rejecting the defense argument that past precedent required narrower parsing:. Manifestly, the applicability of the statute in a falling object case such as the one before us does not under this essential formulation depend upon whether the object has hit the worker.

The relevant inquiry, one which may be answered in the affirmative even in situations where the object does not fall on the worker, is rather whether the harm flows directly from the application of the force of gravity to the object. Here, as the District Court correctly found, the harm to plaintiff was the direct consequence of the application of the force of gravity to the reel.

The latter worker would certainly be entitled to recover under section 1 and there appears no sensible basis to deny plaintiff the same legal recourse. Writing for the majority in San Marco v. Kisco16 N. The public policy purposes served by the statute did not include protection of a village from responsibility for foreseeable harm caused by its own deliberate conduct:.

Unlike a pothole, which ordinarily is a product of wear and tear of traffic or long term melting and freezing on pavement that at one time was safe and served an important purpose, a pile of plowed snow in a parking lot is a cost saving, pragmatic solution to the problem of an accumulation of snow that presents the foreseeable, indeed known, risk of melting and refreezing.

In Sullivan v. Skala 80 N. The clear implication of this statement is that in order for hedge fund compliance officers to be entitled to the same protections as attorneys working in law firms, these protections must be conferred by statute. This approach creates a problem for legislators to solve where none existed previously. The at will employment doctrine and the Wieder exception, both of which are creatures of common law, provide clear guidance.

Rather than alluding to the possible creation of a new statutory remedy, this Court should instead properly apply Wieder. The doctrine of attenuation in the search and seizure context is of course nothing more than a closely limited exception to the general, dominant rule that police intrusions must be justified at their inception see Terry v.

OhioUS 1, 19 20 []; People v. Cantor36 NY2d[]; People v.

Chief judge jonathan lippman biography: Jonathan Lippman is an American jurist

Moore6 NY3d[]. If the exception is not to swallow the rule, care must be taken to assure that the doctrine is correctly employed. This is not an exaggerated or purely academic concern in a jurisdiction where, as is now a matter of public record, hundreds of thousands of pedestrian stops are performed annually by the police, only a very small percentage of which actually result in the discovery of evidence of crime.

Like the assessment of the legal philosophy of a sitting judge, examination of the direction of court system leadership in medias res is a tenuous exercise. This is especially so in the case of Lippman, whose early years of tenure were singularly ill-suited for administrative novelty. In Novemberprompted by a series of developments — the Court of Appeals decision in Maron v.

Silver27 the ceaseless efforts of the Chief Judge to build support among bar allies, the press, and the business community, and the strong support of Governor Paterson in the waning days of his administration — the Legislature at last embraced a solution long championed by the courts: the appointment every four years of a Judicial Compensation Commission, empowered to review and recommend changes in judicial compensation which, in the absence of legislative countermeasure, would take effect by operation of law.

It was an important victory for the new chief judge — all the more remarkable at a time of severe fiscal restraint. Yet even while addressing these thorny issues, Lippman was singularly successful in articulating and implementing his vision of the primary goal of judicial branch leadership: redress of the problem of access to justice in a time of growing economic inequality.

Such a duty was not abstract or academic; it was not an ancillary aspect of court operations to be sacrificed in difficult budget times.

Chief judge jonathan lippman biography: Jonathan Lippman, Chief Judge

Instead it implicated the core values of the courts, and was inextricably entwined with their fundamental purpose. As he noted in his State of the Judiciary address: Our Judiciary has long been a national incubator for innovation. Anything less than that is not justice at all. I believe we must confront, right now more than ever, the challenges posed by record numbers of unrepresented litigants in civil matters involving basic life needs, spiraling home foreclosures, wrongful convictions that imprison the innocent and leave the guilty unpunished, a juvenile justice system that is failing our communities and our children, sentencing laws that are outdated and counterproductive, threats to public confidence arising from judicial campaigns, and fair compensation for judges.

The constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe phrased the problem in a sharper tone in remarks to the Annual Conference of Chief Justices in June In addition to these and other program initiatives, Lippman has wholeheartedly embraced the public and symbolic nature of his office, both on and off the bench. To foster public support for and confidence in the Judiciary, he has been a relentless emissary and advocate on themes of court responsibility, delivering scores of speeches and remarks annually at conferences, fora, symposia, commencements, and other events around the State and nation.

This visibility on the national stage was recognized in Maywhen he was nominated by President Barack Obama to the board of directors of the State Judicial Institute, a national organization dedicated to improving the administration of justice in the state courts through innovation and better coordination with the federal court system.

And yet he remains a work in progress. At this writing, his term on the Court is but half complete; three-and-a-half years remain of his allotted seven. What he will further accomplish in that time and after is unclear; but it can be safely assumed that this short term will exhaust neither his vision, nor his energy, nor his commitment to that chief judge jonathan lippman biography task.

As we have noted, his great strength in leadership rests in part upon an uncanny ability to appreciate multiple perspectives; to discern aspirations shared by antagonists; and to build coalitions and find goals held in common among surface adversaries. Throughout four decades in the court system, from entry-level attorney to Chief Judge, he has demonstrated an extraordinary flexibility of mind and dexterity in diverse roles and missions, succeeding brilliantly in an environment whose sheer scale and diversity dictates a multivariate perspective and approach to governance.

My purpose is to challenge you to take up the task of improving our system, committing yourselves to fixing it. No one is better positioned than you to improve it. Like the Prophet Isaiah, you have touched the burning coal, you have the vision, you have the knowledge, and perhaps most importantly, your voices command the respect which will drive true reform.

Ask yourselves, if not you, who? This sounds exceedingly obvious, but it is a fact that many in the legal profession at times forget or fail to fully internalize. Results in litigation — and whether the parties are individuals or entities — not only matter at every stage, they affect the lives of actual people. Keeping this in mind as one handles a matter for a client as counsel or considers a case as judge helps to focus attention on the perpetual calling of our profession: achieving justice.

Like many of his colleagues on the bench, Chief Judge Lippman has enjoyed felicitous domestic life.