The 2026 Court of Appeals report shows fewer appeals in 2025, with quick case resolutions and mostly affirmed criminal decisions. Civil appeals mainly involved permission from higher courts. The court’s caseload remains steady, with faster dispositions and more signed opinions. It also handled disciplinary cases and updated rules on costs and amicus briefs. Overall, activity is consistent, focusing on efficiency and transparency.
We begin by noting the passing last October of Gary Spencer, the court’s Public Relations Officer for 25 years, during which time we had numerous occasions to call Gary and seek his always helpful aid and advice, which was always given.
We had expected, in keeping with Chief Judge Wilson’s expressed hope in the 2023 Annual Report, that the court would continue to decide more appeals each year until eventually arriving at the over 200 yearly average total dispositions during the 22-year tenure of Chief Judges Kaye and Lippman. But that did not happen. The court decided only 119 appeals (79 civil and 40 criminal), down one from the 120 decided in 2024. We hope the court will increase its caseload this year.
Of the 79 civil appeals decided by the Court in 2025, the jurisdictional predicate for 39 (49%) was permission of the Court of Appeals, 18 (23%) permission of the Appellate Division, 14 (18%) dissents in the Appellate Division, and in 4 (0.5%) a constitutional question was involved. Appx. 4. Stipulations for judgment absolute under CPLR 5601(c) continue to be zero; a wise decision.
The number of civil appeals sent to the Court of Appeals by permission of the Appellate Division might have been larger since Chief Judge Wilson had expressed the hope that the court “will have the opportunity to decide even more appeals.” 2023 Annual Report.
In 2025, the Appellate Division disposed of 7,525 appeals after argument or submission, of which 1,114 were reversals and 881 modifications. 2025 Annual Report, N.Y.S. Unified Court System, p. 72. With so many reversals, we would expect Appellate Division justices to find more questions of law deserving of the Court of Appeals’ attention than in just the 18 appeals where they granted leave to appeal.
The Court of Appeals also accepted and answered three certified questions on New York law for which no precedent of the Court of Appeals exists in cases coming from other jurisdictions set forth in Rule 500.27.
Criminal appeals get to the Court of Appeals by a certificate granting leave to appeal from an order of an intermediate appellate court by a judge granting such permission and certifying that the case involves a question of law which ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals. CPL 460.20 (1).
Where the appeal sought is from an order of the Appellate Division, the certificate may be issued by (i) a judge of the court of appeals or (ii) a justice of the Appellate Division of the Department which entered the order sought to be appealed. Where the appeal sought is from an order of an intermediate appellate court other than the Appellate Division, the certificate may be issued only by a judge of the Court of Appeals. CPL 460.20 (2)(a) and (b).
In 2025, the individual judges of the court decided 1,296 applications for leave to appeal in criminal cases, of which only 32 were granted. Of 21 applications filed by the people, only one was granted. Appx. 7. The average number of cases assigned to each judge was 187 and the average number of grants for each judge was 5. Appx. 7.
Of the 40 criminal appeals decided in 2025, 25 had as their jurisdictional predicate permission of a judge of the Court of Appeals, while 15 had permission of an Appellate Division justice. Appx. 5. In 2024, the disposition of criminal appeals was almost evenly divided between affirmed (51%) and reversed (47%); the four prior years saw between 39% and 55% reversals. Appx. 3. A major change (for which we have no explanation) took place in 2025 when 75% of criminal appeals were affirmed, only 15% reversed and 10 % modified. Appx. 3.
The average period from filing a notice of appeal or an order granting leave to appeal to oral argument was approximately 12 months, down from 14 months in 2024. The court continues to be remarkably prompt in its disposition of appeals following oral argument or submission; for normal course appeals (after full briefing and argument), the average time from argument to disposition was only 38 days; for all appeals the average was 36 days. Report, 6. The average length of time from filing of the notice of appeal or order granting leave to appeal to disposition for normal course appeals was 13.4 months (down from 15.3 in 2024). Report, 6.
As for writings, during 2025 the court decided 119 appeals (79 civil and 40 criminal), 94 of which were decided by signed opinions, 22 by memoranda, and only three by decision list entries. There were 47 dissenting opinions and 11 concurring opinions. Report, 7.
The court also decided 817 motions seeking various forms of relief; among others, 583 were motions for leave to appeal, of which 2 were granted, 417 denied, 130 dismissed and 4 withdrawn (more than one relief request may be decided under a single motion). Others included dismissal of appeals (on motion 1; sua sponte 76), for amicus curiae (126 made, 116 granted), assignment of counsel (41 made and granted), and financial relief (14 granted, 104 dismissed). Appx. 6. Futile motions for reargument continue to be made although there is almost no chance of such a motion being granted; 14 were made and none granted since 2012. Appx. 6 and prior Reports.
The Annual Report contains a 19-page “Year in Review: Decisions” section summarizing significant 2025 decisions “reflecting the range of constitutional, statutory, regulatory and common law issues decided by the court each Year.” Report, 16.
In addition to deciding appeals and motions, the court has exclusive jurisdiction to review determinations of the state commission on Judicial Conduct New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct pursuant to Judiciary Law §44, subd. 7.
After a hearing, the commission may determine that a judge be admonished, censured, removed or retired and its written determination, together with its findings of fact and conclusions of law and the record of the proceedings upon which its determination is based, are transmitted to the chief Judge of the Court of Appeals who has them served on the judge involved who may either accept the determination of the commission or make written request to the chief judge for a review by the Court of Appeals.
Subdivision 9 of Judiciary Law §44 provides “the Court of Appeals with authority not only to ‘review the commission's findings of fact and conclusions of law,’ but also to accept or reject the sanction determined by the commission, impose a different sanction, or impose no sanction at all.”
The level of discipline to be imposed by the Court of Appeals for judicial misconduct rests on its “assessment of the individual facts of each case, as measured against the Code and Rules of Judicial Conduct and the prior precedents of [the] court.” Matter of Miller, 35 NY3d 484, 489 (2000).
In 2025, one judge was suspended by the court as a result of being charged with a felony in New York. The court did not review any determinations in 2025 of the Commission recommending that a judge be disciplined. Report, 8. In 2025, the court amended its Rules of Practice to incorporate changes to CPLR 1101, Motion to waive costs, fees and expenses. The court “also amended Rule 500.23—relating to amicus curiae relief—to provide guidance to potential amici on permissible arguments relating to legislative intent.” Report, 9.
Thomas R. Newman is of counsel at Duane Morris and Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr. is retired from Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt.
Reprinted with permission from New York Law Journal, © ALM Media Properties LLC. All rights reserved.
