Case Name: Milton E. Harrington, Jr., Respondent, v. State of New York Office of Court Administration, Respondent, and Lloyd W. Merritt, as Town Justice of the Town of Kirkwood, Appellant, et al., Defendant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1984-04-03
Citations: 62 N.Y.2d 626
Docket Number: 
Parties: Milton E. Harrington, Jr., Respondent, v State of New York Office of Court Administration, Respondent, and Lloyd W. Merritt, as Town Justice of the Town of Kirkwood, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
Judges: Judges Jones, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur; Judge Jasen dissents and votes to reverse in an opinion in which Judge Wachtler concurs; Chief Judge Cooke taking no part.
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 626–630

Head Matter:
Milton E. Harrington, Jr., Respondent, v State of New York Office of Court Administration, Respondent, and Lloyd W. Merritt, as Town Justice of the Town of Kirkwood, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
Argued February 23, 1984;
decided April 3, 1984
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Herbert A. Kline, Town Attorney (.Ferris D. Lebous of counsel), for appellant.
Stanley B. Reiter for Milton E. Harrington, Jr., respondent.
Marc C. Bloustein, Michael Colodner and Christine Ko-pec for New York Office of Court Administration, respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion of that court (94 AD2d 863). Whatever may have been the pre-enactment deliberations as evidenced in the draft bill, the 1977 amendment as finally adopted does not contain sufficient manifestation of a legislative intent to warrant repudiation of the traditional and long-standing practice that the copy of the trial transcript which is required to be filed with the trial court shall be paid for out of public funds. If, indeed, this was the unarticulated intention, amendment of the statute can make that clear.