Former NYS Court of Appeals Judge Pigott: A Record of Pragmatism

By Corey Carmello

Corey Carmello is a third-year student at Albany Law School. He graduated from the University at Albany in 2014 with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. Corey has interned with Judge Lawrence E. Kahn, of the Northern District of New York; the Albany County District Attorney’s Office; and the Appeals and Opinions Bureau of the New York State Attorney General’s Office. He is also a member of the Albany Law Review and has served as a teaching assistant. Corey will be working as an associate for Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy upon graduation.

This paper was prepared for Professor Bonventre’s Court of Appeals Intensive Seminar.

During his confirmation hearing, Judge Eugene Pigott said, “I approach each case, I like to say, with a great deal of humility, because I don’t think I’m much smarter than, for example, [the legislature] or the governor or another court . . .” He went on to say that this is the reason he focuses on the legislature’s intent when deciding each case. Pigott explained that he will always start with the statute, and if the legislative intent is clear, he will end with the statute.

An analysis of Judge Pigott’s positions in divided decisions shows that he lived up to the philosophy that he spelled out during his confirmation hearing.  In other words, it is evident from his opinion writing and voting pattern that Judge Pigott highly respected the legislative process, and the decisions made at trial.

This paper will discuss (1) his deference to the legislature;  (2) his deference to the trial courts;  (3) his record on criminal law cases;  and (4) it will discuss which Judges were most frequently on the other side of his majority opinions, and for which types of cases.
_____________________________
To read the paper, open HERE.

NYCOA Judge Pigott: Opinion Patterns (presentations)

Here are two mini-presentations prepared by students in the Court of Appeals Intensive Seminar. Students each chose a current member of New York's highest court and looked for patterns in recent opinions written by the chosen Judge. In these presentations, one student looked at Judge Pigott's majority opinions and the other looked at his dissents. 

Corey Carmello

 To view Corey Carmello's presentation on Judge Pigott's majority opinions, click HERE.

***********

Eric Brenner

To view Eric Brenner's presentation on Judge Pigott's dissenting opinions, click HERE.

NYCOA Judge Pigott: Majority Opinion Patterns (presentation)

By Corey Carmello

Corey Carmello is a second-year student at Albany Law School. He graduated summa cum laude from the University at Albany in 2014 with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. Since starting law school, Corey has interned with Judge Lawrence E. Kahn, of the Northern District of New York; the Albany County District Attorney’s Office; and the Appeals and Opinions Bureau of the New York State Attorney General’s Office. He is also a member of the Albany Law Review. Corey will be working as a summer associate for Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy this summer, and hopes to work there as an associate upon graduation.
This presentation was prepared for Professor Bonventre’s Court of Appeals Intensive Seminar.

This presentation is the result of research conducted on the past 10 majority opinions—i.e., in non-unanimous cases--written by Judge Eugene Pigott of the New York Court of Appeals. A pattern of deference to the trial court and to the legislature, and a general pattern of being pro-prosecution was apparent from this research.

(click on any slide to enlarge)

NYCOA Judge Pigott: Dissenting Opinion Patterns (presentation)

By Eric Brenner

Eric Brenner is a second-year student at Albany Law School and graduated with honors from Siena College in 2014 with a degree in Finance.  Eric is the Executive Managing Editor for Volume 80 of the Albany Law Review.  He has served as a judicial intern in U.S. District Court for both the Hon. Lawrence E. Kahn and the Hon. Charles J. Siragusa.  Additionally, Eric has been a teaching assistant and research assistant at Albany Law. 
This presentation was prepared for Professor Bonventre’s Court of Appeals Intensive Seminar.

Before beginning research, I was aware that Judge Pigott has been one of the Court's more frequent dissenters. In his 10 most recent authored dissents, 9 were in criminal cases. Of these, Judge Pigott dissented alone in 6.  His dissents appear to focus on policy concerns, practicality, and giving deference to the trial court. Judge Pigott’s dissents are very articulate in the way in which they examine the precedents and the facts in the record.

(click on any slide to enlarge)

Judge Pigott on Medical Malpractice

His Positions in Divided Cases

By John J. Phelan
Jack Phelan, a 2014 graduate of Albany Law School, served as an executive editor of the Albany Law Review. His student note was selected for publication: "The Assault Weapons Ban--Politics, the Second Amendment, and the Country’s Continued Willingness to Sacrifice Innocent Lives for 'Freedom'” (77 Alb. L. Rev. 579).
While at Albany Law, Jack also participated in the Senior Prize Trials, his team finishing runner-up, and he served a judicial internship with the Honorable Edward O. Spain of the Appellate Division, Third Department.
As an undergraduate at Hartwick College, Jack was a standout football player making five different All-America teams in his final two seasons.  He is also a member of Hartwick College’s Athletic Hall of Fame.
Jack is currently an associate at Smith Sovik in Syracuse where he had participated in the 2013 Summer Associate program. He focuses on all areas of civil litigation including products liability, professional malpractice, premises liability, trucking and motor vehicle accidents, Labor Law and construction accidents, labor and employment, and the defense of Workers’ Compensation Claims.
He prepared this paper for Prof. Bonventre's Court of Appeals Intensive Seminar.

This paper analyzes Judge Eugene Pigott’s voting patterns in divided medical malpractice cases since he has been on the New York Court of Appeals.

Judge Pigott—long before he was appointed to the Court of Appeals in September of 2006—practiced law in Buffalo, New York with the firm Offermann, Fallon, Mahoney & Adner in two separate stints from 1974 to 1982 and 1986 to 1997. Judge Pigott told our Court of Appeals Seminar class, in a session with us during the semester, that he handled all kinds of personal injury cases for the plaintiff’s side during his time working at Offerman. This included medical malpractice actions.

Before I read a single Court of Appeals case, my initial thought was that Judge Pigott would be sympathetic to the plaintiff in close medical malpractice cases. As it turns out, I was right.

From the time Judge Pigott joined the Court of Appeals in 2006 until this study was prepared, he voted in nine divided cases involving medical malpractice. Not entirely surprisingly, Judge Pigott voted with the plaintiff in all but one of those cases.
_____________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

"THE UNTOLD SECRETS OF EAGLE STREET"

 As Told by the Judges of the Court of Appeals Themselves!

The 7th Annual Chief Judge Lawrence H. Cooke Symposium

Thursday, March 21

5:00 - 7:00pm

Albany Law School

For more information, click HERE.

Patterns in Pigott's Dissents

By Julia Steciuk

Julia Steciuk, a second year student at Albany Law School, studied English as an undergraduate at Siena College.  During her first year at Albany Law, Julia became Co-Director of Albany Law's Animal Pro Bono Project, as well as President of the school's Animal Legal Defense Fund chapter.  Julia is also a Research Assistant for Professor Vincent M. Bonventre, and an Associate Editor for the Center for Judicial Process.  She spent her summer interning with the Albany County District Attorney's Office.
This essay was prepared from research Julia did for Prof. Bonventre. 

At the time of this writing—December 2012—New York Court of Appeals Judge Eugene Pigott had dissented forty-five times since Jonathan Lippman was appointed Chief Judge in 2009.

Judge Pigott dissented in twenty-two criminal cases.  Of these, he dissented in favor of the criminal defendant’s interests five times.  Against those interests seventeen times.

Judge Pigott dissented in favor of criminal defendants’ right to counsel in two cases.  In one case, the defendant requested new counsel and, according to Pigott, the request was denied without the required minimal inquiry by the trial court.[1]  

In the other, the trial court disqualified defendant’s counsel after the defendant gave a waiver for conflicts that might arise.[2]  Judge Pigott maintained that the defendant should have been able to select the counsel of his choosing.[3]

The NYCOA Bunch: An Analysis of Divided Criminal Cases at the New York State Court of Appeals

By Alexander Hyde
Alex Hyde, a 2011 summa cum laude graduate of Albany Law School, is currently employed in the General Counsel’s office for a group of insurance companies, headquartered in Glenmont, N.Y.  In his paper and slides, which were prepared for the Fall 2010 Judicial Process Seminar, Alex tracked and analyzed voting trends at the New York Court of Appeals in divided criminal cases between 2007 and 2010.


Observing the actual function of courts has been the work of many legal realists. It is an important task for many reasons.  First, courts make law and determine rights.  Demystification of the judicial process helps to decipher how justice is meted out; it can also prepare a practitioner.  Second, many realists seek to improve the way courts function. The first step in that process is to acknowledge the current role of the judiciary and isolate areas of weakness.  Finally and most importantly, for many realists the determination of what courts actually do is important simply to expose the inaccuracies of alternative pronouncements of the judicial process.  If ignorance tolerates injustice, disingenuousness accelerates and exacerbates it.  A frank discussion of reality, the argument goes, is the necessary approach to a judicial system which, admittedly, is impossible to perfect.

For my foray into the realist’s world, I chose to observe the New York State Court of Appeals.  The Court’s recent change of leadership piqued my interest. Specifically, I sought to determine the significance of the replacement of former Chief Judge Judith Kaye with the current Chief Judge, Jonathan Lippman.  Other than their swap, the court’s composition has remained unchanged since 2006.  Therefore, the two chiefs were each paired with the same six confederates for roughly the same period of time as of the writing of this paper.

To glean the significance of this judicial switcheroo, I chose to analyze divided criminal cases at the Court for the final two years of Chief Judge Kaye’s tenure, and for the first two years of Chief Judge Lippman’s tenure.  I focused on whether cases were decided “pro-defendant” or “pro-prosecution”.  I made the same determination for each judge’s written opinions and dissenting votes.  Based upon that compilation of data, I attempted to identify any discernible trends, and the results of that effort are reported below.*

_____________________________
* Citations to references in this introduction are available in the paper.

To read the entire paper, open HERE.
To view the complete slide presentation, open HERE.
(It is then best to download the presentation and view it from there.)