-8-
Nos. 56 & 58
of signatures, and there was no claim of any fraudulent, misleading or deceptive actions
(id.). The majority does not dispute those findings.
II.
Unlike the Appellate Division, which had no choice but to decide these cases, our
docket is largely discretionary. As explained in our own Rules of Practice, we define a
“leaveworthy” case as a case in which “the issues are novel or of public importance, present
a conflict with prior decisions of this Court, or involve a conflict among the departments
of the Appellate Division” (22 NYCRR 500.22 [b] [4]). Each year, we turn away hundreds
of cases because, in our judgment, deciding them would have no significant statewide
import. In many of those cases the result is wrong, unfair or questionable, but because a
reversal would not advance the law in an area in which advancement is needed, we decline
to hear such cases (see Arthur Karger, Powers of the NY Court of Appeals § 10:3 [“the
primary, though not the sole, function of the Court of Appeals is conceived to be that of
declaring and developing an authoritative body of decisional law for the guidance of the
lower courts, the bar and the public, rather than merely correcting errors committed by the
courts below”]).
As a general matter, we should not interpret the laws of the state based on
extraordinary and unusual facts that are not likely to recur. The First Department’s decision
carves out a very narrow exception, specifically limited to the facts of this pandemic, the
restrictions attendant to it, and the particular minor defects at issue here. The Third
Department disputes that rationale, though as I explain below, the Third Department should
never have reached this issue, because Ms. Hawatmeh’s filing was patently timely. Thus,
-8-