ALBANY — Critics of New York’s maze-like judicial system — with 11 separate trial courts — have long contended it is far too unwieldy, costly and inefficient, requiring too much unnecessary paperwork from lawyers and litigants.

The state’s top judge and two influential lawmakers who head the judiciary committees in the two chambers of the Legislature have now embraced a plan that would consolidate the courts through a merger.

The legislation promoted by Assemblyman Charles Lavine, D-Long Island, and Sen. Brad Hoylman, D-Manhattan, would require a constitutional amendment. That approach involves getting the same bill passed in two consecutive sessions of the Legislature before voters are asked to approve the plan via a ballot referendum.

As an indication of how confusing the state court system has become, one of the lowest rungs on the ladder is the state Supreme Court, a term most other states reserve for higher echelon courts, said John Kaehny, director of the government reform group Reinvent Albany.

“When you look at an organizational chart, the New York state court system looks like an octopus that’s trying to eat itself,” Kaehny told CNHI.

Supporters of the proposed overhaul say it would untangle a “labyrinth” that is now more than 200 years old and enhance access to the courts for low-income New Yorkers.

Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, a Democrat appointed to her post by former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, said the current system would be transformed into a “model of efficiency” if the plan is enacted.

For instance, people now involved in matrimonial, child support and custody disputes are often required to go from court to court to resolve related matters, the advocates for consolidation said.

A 2018 study by the Special Commission on the Future of the New York Court concluded that a merger could produce $443 million annually for litigants by slashing the number of times they and their lawyers have to appear in court.

Opposition to a merger has come from associations representing judges. They have contended in legislative testimony that the changes advocated by DiFiore would result in more confusion and greater complexity faced by litigants.

But the advocates for the plan include the New York State Bar Association. Its president, T. Andrew Brown, told lawmakers at a state budget hearing in January that the consolidation plan is sorely needed.

“Holding countless confusing hearings and proceedings is not only expensive, it also causes anxiety, pain and despair for vulnerable persons,” Brown said.

The consolidation plan would not impact local town and village courts. There are more than 1700 of them across the state.

The plan would consolidate the major trial courts into what would be called the Supreme Court, and consolidate the trial courts of lesser jurisdiction into a new statewide Municipal Court. The plan would permit the Legislature, every 10 years, to fix the boundaries of the appellate departments.

Hoylman said his goals include diversity in the judiciary and “respecting our unionized workforce.”

“As we emerge from the pandemic, now is the time to address the deficiencies in New York’s court system,” the senator said.

Lavine said the current court system has resulted in “radically different experiences for litigants depending on their racial, economic and geographic backgrounds, and costs everyone time and money.”

Streamlining of statewide court systems has been implemented by California and New Jersey, among other states.

Proponents of the New York proposal say it would expand opportunities for greater diversity among judges.

The proposal is also backed by the state chapter of the League of Women Voters and the New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.