In any action or proceeding brought to review a determination of the chief judge of the court of appeals, of the court of appeals or of the administrative board of the courts, made pursuant to the provisions of article seven-A of the judiciary law or section twenty-eight of article six of the constitution, the only proper party to be named therein shall be the chief administrator of the courts, in his representative capacity. No action or proceeding so instituted shall name the chief judge, the court of appeals or any member thereof, or the administrative board or any member thereof as a party.
§ 1026.Review of determinations by administrative officers of the unified court system
Article 10. Parties Generally · Last amended 1978 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceCPLR 1026 requires that a proceeding reviewing a determination of the chief judge, the court of appeals, or the administrative board of the courts name only the chief administrator of the courts, in a representative capacity, and bars naming those bodies or their members as parties.
Full Text of CPLR 1026
Plain-English Summary
Some judicial proceedings review decisions made by the court system's own administrative leadership, and CPLR 1026 sets a strict rule about who can be named as a party in those cases. When a proceeding challenges a determination made by the chief judge of the court of appeals, the court of appeals itself, or the administrative board of the courts, acting under Judiciary Law article 7-A or the relevant constitutional provision, the only proper party is the chief administrator of the courts, sued in a representative capacity.
The flip side of that rule is a clear prohibition: the proceeding cannot name the chief judge, the court of appeals, or any of its members, or the administrative board or any of its members, as parties. The chief administrator stands in for all of them, so litigation over administrative decisions doesn't turn into a suit against the state's highest court or its judges individually.
That structure keeps a category of case that's inherently a challenge to judicial administration from becoming, formally, a lawsuit against the judiciary's own members. It channels review of these administrative decisions through the chief administrator's office instead.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who do I name as a party to challenge a court administrative decision in New York?
CPLR 1026 requires naming only the chief administrator of the courts, in a representative capacity, when reviewing a determination of the chief judge, the court of appeals, or the administrative board of the courts.
Can I name the New York Court of Appeals as a party in a proceeding under CPLR 1026?
No. CPLR 1026 specifically bars naming the court of appeals, or any of its members, as a party in these proceedings.
What determinations does CPLR 1026 cover?
It covers determinations made under Judiciary Law article 7-A or the relevant constitutional provision by the chief judge of the court of appeals, the court of appeals, or the administrative board of the courts.
Can I sue an individual judge over an administrative court decision in New York?
No. CPLR 1026 requires that these proceedings name only the chief administrator of the courts, and bars naming the chief judge or any member of the administrative board individually.
What is the chief administrator's role under CPLR 1026?
The chief administrator of the courts is named in a representative capacity as the sole proper party to defend a proceeding reviewing an administrative determination of the court system's leadership.
Amendment History
Add, L 1978, ch 156, § 10, eff May 19, 1978.
Source & verification. Provision text, History, and Advisory
Committee Notes are reproduced verbatim from the Consolidated Laws of New York.
Last verified July 21, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: CPLR 1026 New Yorkreview of unified court system determinationchief administrator of the courts lawsuitchallenging administrative board of courts decisionjudiciary law article 7-A review New Yorksuing chief judge New York procedureadministrative determination court system review CPLR