An Appreciation and A Fervent Plea for Its Restoration and Renewal
by Robert C. Meade, Jr., Esq., and John F. Werner, Esq.
August, 2026
The New York County Courthouse, principal home of the Supreme Court, Civil Branch, New York County, opened its doors in February 1927. So, in only a matter of months it will reach a momentous milestone — its 100th anniversary. That event will present the legal community in New York with an opportunity to reflect upon the building and its attributes and to celebrate its contributions to the life of the city and to the work of justice, which has been carried out in this edifice by so many for all of these years. We address this topic in the first section of this article. The centennial will also challenge all of us to encourage and achieve in the near future a major restoration and renewal of the courthouse, something that it sorely needs, as we will describe in the second part of this article.[1] (We recognize that many courthouses in the city and state are in need of repair and do not wish to minimize those needs, but we focus here on the restoration and renewal of our landmark courthouse in view of its impending centenary.)
The Great Courthouse
The New York County Courthouse is perhaps, with the exception of the home of the United States Supreme Court, the best-known courthouse in this country. It is very familiar to the millions who live in the New York City area, and, of course, to attorneys from across New York who practice there. Over its lifetime, vast numbers of residents of Manhattan have gone there or passed by it. The building is, in addition, well-known to Americans generally because over decades it has been used with great frequency in movies and television programs. In the Godfather, for instance, Don Barzini is shot to death on the courthouse steps as he seeks to run from the assassin sent by Michael Corleone. Under the great portico, we see Henry Fonda say farewell to one of his fellow jurors as they, having done their duty, prepare to walk down the steps on their way home in the closing scene of Twelve Angry Men, the whole of which took place in the courthouse. The courthouse appears in many other features, including Miracle on 34th Street (1947 and 1994), Joker (2024), Bridge of Spies (2015), Wall Street (1987), Prince of the City (1981), and Goodfellas (1990). Many spaces throughout the building and the main staircase have been used very often in television programs, including countless episodes of Law and Order. For years, an image of the staircase and portico was used in the montage that opened every episode of that program.
The building achieved its prominence in good part because of certain special qualities. Designed by Guy Lowell, the courthouse is a neo-Classical structure, a product of the American Renaissance in architecture in the last part of the 19th century and the early years of the 20th. Buildings such the Morgan Library and Columbia’s Low Library were constructed in this period and conveyed a blending of classical tradition and modern ideas that sought to reflect the ambition, wealth, and cultural growth of a country that was expanding and taking on a new role in the world during the Gilded Age and after. The courthouse was one of the last neo-Classical public buildings built in the city.
The classicism of the courthouse conveys restraint, harmony, balance, and dignity. Majesty is part of the design as well, as seen particularly in the massive façade and portico, with its ten huge columns facing Centre Street, and the vast and glorious staircase, which is 100 feet wide consisting of 32 steps. The design of the whole expresses beautifully the very idea of a courthouse and the qualities of justice that the work of the building seeks to implement.
The classical concerns of the exterior are displayed in the interior as well. Mr. Lowell sought to achieve a consistent approach in the design and decoration of the building’s interior. The same search for proportion, balance, and harmony is seen throughout, especially on the first two floors, in the imposing vestibule, the beautiful main corridor, and, above all, the rotunda.
The courthouse is undoubtedly a masterpiece of the neo-Classical style and of the American Renaissance. In 1966 and 1981, the building and the first and second floors of the interior, including many features thereof, were designated landmarks by the Landmarks Preservation Commission (hereafter “the Commission”). The Commission noted Guy Lowell’s innovative use of radiating corridors and the “splendidly-designed central rotunda,” which is marked by “an opulent variety of materials and colors” in “one of the best” neo-Classical public buildings built in New York City.
Lowell made extensive use of marble, cast-iron radiator grilles and elevator doors, gold leaf detail, and marble water fountains. Light fixtures were created by Tiffany Studios. Lowell took the trouble to specify that the courtrooms were to have floors of cork tile in order to minimize noise that might interfere with court proceedings. The radiating corridors, with their two courtrooms facing each other at the end, also were designed to contribute to that goal by keeping away from courtrooms above the ground floor the noise occasioned by lawyers, litigants, and others moving around the building. The rotunda, “in essence the recreation of a splendid Roman hall,” as the Commission put it, is marked out by large marble Corinthian columns and flanking piers in travertine. There are arched portals at the ground level and windows on false balconies above. These elements run from the ground to the second floor, where a balcony runs behind the columns. There is much marble throughout the rotunda. The column capitals are intricately carved and there are bas relief designs on the marble above them. A most arresting feature of the space, the Commission noted, is the “magnificent, dark-toned marble floor designed as a compass and bordered by circular bands with the signs of the zodiac cast in bronze in low relief.”
The courtrooms that Lowell created are grand, impressive spaces, characterized by very lofty ceilings, substantial space for trial participants and observers, and much woodwork throughout, on railings, the bench, jury boxes, and wainscoting, which brings warmth to the space. The courtrooms were lit by natural light and dignified Tiffany ceiling lights.
The plan for the courthouse, through the use of the radiating corridors and six light courts, was “wonderfully efficient and extremely inventive,” in the words of the Commission, and we still have a sense of that today, a century later. The light courts are open areas within the structure. They and windows on the exterior walls allow light to enter courtrooms from both their interior and exterior sides. The radiating corridors are also illuminated on both sides by the light courts.
Another innovative feature of Lowell’s design is his treatment of the dome over the rotunda. Many a busy attorney or other visitor may not take note of this, but the ceiling of the rotunda is topped by a dome and by a roof that do not extend to the top of the entire structure. Rather, the dome and roof reach to the third floor inside the building, as one can observe from the circular corridor next to the elevators on the third floor.
Major highlights of the interior of the courthouse are murals that were painted during the Great Depression. Murals were part of Lowell’s original vision for the building, but they had not yet been installed by 1927, only a little over two years before the Depression devasted the artistic community of this country. There are 38 murals, all of which were created with the support of the Federal Art Project of the Works Progress Administration (“WPA”), save for a few sponsored by a short-lived predecessor. The principal muralist was the Italian painter, Attilio Pusterla, an immigrant to this country, who provided overall direction to the painting and executed a number of the murals himself, including the major ones on the first floor. Particularly noteworthy are the frescoes on the ceilings and walls of the vestibule, the central corridor, the radiating corridors on the first two floors, and, above all, the “powerful” and “wonderful, 30-foot high mural” in the rotunda.
The fresco in the vestibule of the courthouse, on which work began in early January 1934, was one of the first art projects supported by the federal government during the Depression anywhere in the country. The great rotunda mural was one of the largest and earliest projects done anywhere under the Art Project’s auspices.
The rotunda was the focal point of Lowell’s plan and the mural was the most significant part of the work Pusterla performed in the building. This fresco, entitled “The Law Through the Ages,” tells the history of law and justice in twelve beautifully-painted scenes. The theme of the mural provides both a natural backdrop to and an inspiration for the daily work of the court. The colors of this mural and other frescoes on the first two floors remain remarkably bright and vibrant despite their age of 90 and more years.
There are also numerous WPA murals in the Ceremonial Courtroom (Room 300), the Jury Assembly Room (Rooms 448 and 452), and the conference room on the Seventh Floor.
All of the murals reflect remarkable optimism considering that they were created in the midst of the prevailing gloom of the Depression and in advance of the catastrophe that was to come to the world late in the 1930’s, with the beginning of World War II.
In short, the New York County Courthouse is a building of beauty, but also one of distinctive and distinguished character. The courthouse is, at least in our view, an architectural jewel in the crown of the trial court system in New York State.
Throughout the century of its life, the courthouse has been a very busy place. A great many citizens, perhaps by now numbering in the millions, have done business with the County Clerk and have been screened for, summoned for and carried out service on juries; hundreds of thousands of lawsuits have been brought by litigants seeking justice and these have been overseen by hundreds of judges, with the support of thousands of staff; many tens of thousands of attorneys from across the state have represented litigants there and argued causes there. 25,000 or more cases are brought there each year and multiple tens of thousands of motions are decided there annually, and these things have been so for quite some time. Many of these cases are substantial ones, arising out of Manhattan’s position as one of the principal centers, not only in this country, but in the entire world, of finance, commerce, business, publishing, communications, the arts, and numerous other fields of endeavor. (The courthouse was the original home of New York’s Commercial Division. It was introduced there as a pilot program in 1992, formalized as a Division in 1995, and continues as the largest segment of the Division in the state, which now has 10 branches in operation.) For generations of civil litigators, especially those who practice in the greater metropolitan area, the courthouse has been over the decades a familiar professional home, informally known, with affection, we think, as “60 Centre” or even just “60.”
In this stately and impressive courthouse, the work of justice has been pursued for a century without pause and with energy and diligence, to the benefit of the citizens of New York and the entire country. This is a very great legacy, one certainly much worth celebrating when the day of the 100th anniversary arrives. When the courthouse opened, Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo and other distinguished jurists, officials, Bar leaders, and attorneys were present and Charles Evans Hughes gave an address that was broadcast to the general public over the radio. We hope that the court, the New York Unified Court System, the entire New York Bar, the preservation community, and the City of New York will mark the occasion of the centennial with similar solemnity and ceremony, but also with gratitude, celebrating the courthouse and its achievements and wishing it well as it prepares for its second century.
A Plea for the Courthouse’s Restoration and Renewal
But merely wishing the building well is not enough. The anniversary provides also a natural opportunity, and indeed imposes on us a duty, to do something more concrete — namely, to evaluate how well this great, landmark edifice has endured the vicissitudes of its 100 years of life and to support the development and execution of plans to rectify the problems from which it suffers. The glory that this building exhibited in February 1927 has indisputably faded. It is worth trying to imagine a walk through the courthouse that year or in 1938, after the murals had been installed, and to compare the building as it was then — with its stately elevators commanded by attendants perhaps in livery, main floor spaces and halls sparkling with beautiful, unblemished marble, the pristine murals in their vibrancy, the shining woodwork, the great Tiffany lanterns, lamps and lights illuminating the beautiful interior spaces — to the compromised condition it exhibits today. The building, in our judgment, deserves to be restored to what it once was. We hope that this centenary will provide a decisive impetus to all interested parties and groups to encourage and support a suitable program of restoration and renewal by the City of New York that will soon achieve that goal.
No building can survive for a century without undergoing notable wear and tear. This is particularly so in the case of a structure that has been put to as much use as has the courthouse. Over the decades, the demands upon the building increased immensely beyond those that Mr. Lowell had anticipated. The caseload of the court, the number of justices and staff working there, the number of jurors called there, and the number of attorneys and litigants appearing there grew very dramatically. The court has over at least the past 40 years continually been struggling to provide courtrooms and Chambers for the justices of the court and their immediate staff and to find space to house support offices and staff. The workload of the court so increased that it has been decades since the courthouse has been able to accommodate the whole of the Supreme Court, Civil Branch, New York County (much less the whole of the New York County Supreme Court), which has spilled over into, at various times, four other buildings. Space in the building designed by Mr. Lowell for one purpose has been cannibalized for others, such as some large and stately courtrooms that were converted to use as offices for staff operations and elevator shafts that were made into offices for attorneys. The need for effective maintenance of the building thus became ever more pressing with the passing years. The inevitable problems produced by the passage of time in these intensely challenging circumstances have been aggravated by some ill luck and by shortcomings in the building’s protection and maintenance.
A. Some Problems the Building Has Encountered
General wear — interior and exterior: In general, the courthouse has become markedly degraded from what it was in 1927. For example, some busy and crowded clerks’ offices, attorneys’ offices, and public restrooms have become worn and dingy. The entire interior of the building needs a thorough cleaning and polishing. Indeed, the exterior, on which a successful power wash was done some 50 years ago, is itself overdue for a cleaning.
Cracking and other issues on the exterior: Parts of the building have been damaged over the century in various ways. Water has infiltrated the façade, rusting some supporting ironwork and causing it to expand, cracking the granite veneer in places and damaging not just walls, but window wells around the building. Netting that was installed around the capitals of the Corinthian columns and elsewhere in the late 1990’s or thereabouts seems to be failing. This netting was placed there to discourage pigeons from roosting and leaving droppings that soil the stone and pose health hazards.
Roofing problems: There are leaks in the roofing at various places in the building that allow water to seep into office spaces, hallways, and elsewhere, including Chambers on the 6th floor. These problems have been persistent enough to indicate that repairs that have been periodically attempted have never been adequate.
Damaged marble: In various places over the years, marble has become cracked and broken and gone missing. Occasionally, it falls from the walls. There are missing or broken marble door frames. In some places the marble framing has been replaced with pine boards, some of which have been painted in a poor effort to mimic the real thing. In other places marble has been chipped, stained by dirt, or damaged by water. In the public restrooms, original pedestal sinks and expansive marble installations are well worth preserving, but here too significant cleaning, polishing, and refurbishing of those important accommodations are long overdue.
Clocks, windows, and air conditioning: More than a few of the clocks original to the courthouse, which are prominently displayed in the courtrooms over the judge’s bench and in other locations and which in 1927 were capable of being set remotely, have ceased to function, with some having long ago lost their arms. Some windows have deteriorated and have become difficult or impossible to close or move. A new air conditioning unit is needed in the rotunda.
Loss of fixtures and elements: Over the decades, the courthouse lost fixtures and elements due to decisions taken by the authorities of the time, who were seeking to make what seemed to them to be improvements, as well as because of inadequate attention, vandalism, or theft.
A principle of the proper care of a landmark structure, in our opinion, ought always to be to respect the quality of the artistry that went into the design and construction of the original structure and its features. In and around such a building there ought to be a culture of preservation, in which everyone working there recognizes the importance of protecting the structure and its features and does whatever can be done to preserve and maintain them. An unfortunate theme in the history of the courthouse is that at times this culture has been missing or ineffective.
When the building opened, bronze fencing was located at the top of the staircase under the portico. Years ago, the fencing was stolen. The repairs undertaken fell short of a true restoration, another recurring theme. Apparently, no effort was made to find or fabricate bronze replacements in the style of the originals. Pedestrian iron railings were installed instead.
In 1927, small worktops made of wrought iron with glass tops were thoughtfully and cleverly affixed to the walls of corridors so that attorneys and litigants could conveniently make notes before or during breaks in proceedings. Some of these work stations of the past can be seen today. In the case of some of them, the glass was lost over the decades. It was common for the glass to be replaced, not by glass of similar or greater strength, but by wood, each instance of which represents a loss to the building.
In decades past, until about 40 years ago when a protective procedure was introduced, the authorities looked with a certain casualness upon the benches and chairs in the building, some of which were original to the building and others of which came from the Tweed Courthouse, which was completed in 1881. If such a chair suffered damage, such as a broken arm, it might simply be tossed away.
Lost lighting: At the time of the opening of the courthouse, beautiful Tiffany Studios light fixtures graced the ceiling of the Ceremonial Courtroom and, we believe, all of the courtrooms. At some point, perhaps in the 1940s or early 1950s, a decision was taken to replace these ceiling lights. The original lights disappeared, making way for the uninspiring successors that can be seen today. Similarly, in the Jury Assembly Room, original Tiffany pendent lamps were removed and replaced by banks of fluorescent lighting, which have continuously been and remain a blight upon the building. These actions not only deprived the courthouse of the special beauty of the original fixtures, but also damaged a part of Mr. Lowell’s vision for a harmonious interior.
At its opening, the courthouse benefitted from the presence of many attractive task lamps or desk lamps, which may have been Tiffany creations. Many of these disappeared over the years, although a few could still be found around 1970. In the years that followed they became entirely extinct, probably due to theft.
The “Save a Watt” program: In the 1970s, the courthouse was adversely affected by a City program, called “Save a Watt,” intended to save money on the cost of lighting. A worthy goal, to be sure. The original plan was to remove permanently from the courthouse the great majority of the surviving original light fixtures. The Administrative Judge, Hon. Edward Dudley, and County Clerk Norman Goodman were able to persuade the authorities to preserve and relocate surviving pendent globes and ceiling globes, although in all of the confusion of the time, some of the ceiling globes went missing. However, heavy decorative Tiffany bronze ceiling pieces with bulbs, which were informally referred to as “sconces,” were almost all removed and replaced by ghastly plastic and tin “fixtures,” which looked as though they had been purchased for $ 3.99 each at Woolworths. These “fixtures” were still in place in the hallways and offices of the courthouse when we last looked around. Of course, they look even worse today than they did in the 1970’s.
As finally implemented, this setback for the courthouse was all the more regrettable when one thinks that had the City waited for a while, advances in illumination in the form of screw-in LED bulbs would have made the undertaking completely unnecessary.
Lost firedoors and hardware and brass plating: During the late 1980s-early 1990s, original fire doors, which contained large, very useful vision panels, were removed and thrown away, together with their original hardware, including custom door handles in bronze or brass on the top of each of which the name of the courthouse was carved. These doors were not up to the then-current code. Perhaps there was no means by which they could have been upgraded, but we are not sure how much thinking was given to that possibility, or at least to preserving the hardware and putting it on new doors. In place of the numerous originals, hideous contemporary doors were installed, of course at a cost, and not all of these doors had vision panels (originally none were to have them), which were in any event small and so imperfectly effective.
Numerous brass door push plates and kick plates were stolen over the years.
The threat to the jury boxes: Some years ago, it was recommended that all the jury boxes original to the courtrooms should be replaced as non-ADA-compliant. If this proposal retains any life, its implementation would, in our view, be a grave mistake. With respect, it seems to us that if ADA action indeed needs to be taken, the action should consist of accommodation and modification, not destruction. If the problem is that some of the built-in chairs in the boxes are damaged, the answer is to repair them; all the chairs should not be destroyed if only some of them are defective. If it has been found after careful study that repairs cannot be made, the solution would be to replace the damaged chairs with substitutes that match or closely resemble the originals, not to remove not just all the chairs, but all the boxes in their entirety. Discarding all of the jury boxes would amount to a repetition of the sort of unwarranted destruction that was done in the courthouse to Guy Lowell’s Tiffany lighting fixtures.
Further, based on past experience in the courthouse itself, it is probable that whatever replacement boxes or measures would be installed were this misbegotten idea to come to fruition would be poor and inadequate substitutes for the originals. The new boxes would fail to do their jobs as well as the originals, and would very likely look, for as long as the courthouse stands, far less beautiful than the boxes Guy Lowell ordered installed. These jury boxes are the product of the design work of Guy Lowell. The wood was carefully chosen to fit in harmoniously and beautifully with all of the other wood that graces the courtrooms and constitutes such a special characteristic of the courtrooms. The jury boxes serve an essential function while advancing in an important way, in harmony with the other elements of the design, the aesthetic vision of the architect. The jury boxes, being original to the courthouse, are now century-old antiques. The chairs in the boxes have been occupied over the century by countless jurors and prospective jurors; we owe it to them and to the courthouse to preserve the history and tradition of these courtrooms. The boxes are, moreover, deserving of preservation because they are jury boxes, which, by their beauty, pay respect to one of the basic principles of our system of justice — that the citizens of this country decide the facts regarding civil claims and criminal charges. More than that, the jury boxes are, together with the other vital fixtures of the interior of the courthouse from the third floor upward, including the murals of the Third, Fourth and Seventh Floors and such of the original lighting fixtures as have managed to survive the efforts to remove them, elements that warrant the landmarking of the entire interior of the courthouse. [2]
At a minimum, we believe that before any irrevocable damage is done to any of the jury boxes, knowledgeable preservationists should be consulted. There may well be another way that can be found if it is looked for.
Of course, one might argue that it would perhaps be less expensive to scrap all the original jury boxes and replace them with cheap wooden installations together with a bunch of chairs from Macy’s. Perhaps that would be cheaper. But we have seen this movie before playing in the courthouse. If cheapness is the only standard, then what we ought to scrap are landmark designations and the Landmarks Preservation Commission.
We mentioned earlier that a culture of preservation is critical to the sound treatment of an historic landmark such as the New York County Courthouse. Destruction of beautiful original fixtures and elements in an historic building should be the very last resort, to be invoked only when a change has been determined to be inescapable after thorough, impartial study, and after every other possible option has been explored in detail and discarded for compelling reasons. We added that that culture has failed in the courthouse on occasion in the past. If the proposal for the removal of the jury boxes were to be actively revived, we would here see yet another such failure in danger of occurring, once again, live and in person.
The stresses that come with digital technology: Digital technology has, of course, changed litigation and the courthouse, including by rendering the large library on the fifth floor, for decades the very heart of the courthouse, a dinosaur. The infrastructure for this technology has had a stressful impact on the courthouse, with cables and wires in abundance and closets for equipment.
Protracted effectuation of repairs: Another theme in the history of the edifice is that when maintenance problems have been identified, the repairs, such as they are, have frequently taken a long time to complete — sometimes a very long time indeed. Damages have often gone uncorrected for years, such as in the case of a substantial patch of missing wall marble on the third floor, which sat unaltered for several years. In the case of some problems, delay in the undertaking of repairs or replacements can aggravate the seriousness of the problems, such as with roofing and internal leaks. Further, if pieces of marble or bronze fixtures or woodworking are set aside for a time pending repairs and the “time” turns out to very extended, the chances increase that the things set aside will be lost.
In April 2008, a vehicle traveling north on Centre Street jumped the curb and took out 25 feet or so of the railings at the foot of the portico stairs. The railings were made of bronze and bore sculpted designs. Purportedly temporary replacements for the lost sections of the railings were installed, which consisted of ordinary, humdrum iron pipes linked to the surviving portions of the bronze and held in place by duct tape wrapped around the intersection of the two. This will seem hard to credit, but today, more than 18 years after the accident, the ugly and supposedly temporary substitutes for the bronze are still there, and still secured by duct tape, which has presumably been periodically renewed. Such a prolonged “repair” is unfortunate, but it is even more regrettable at the center of the majestic courthouse staircase.
Another story is related to this one. In or about the mid-1990s, in connection with repair work on the iron substructure that supported the staircase, it was decided that the railings, the bronze originals together with the ersatz portions just described, should be given updated anchoring, which was done through the employment of iron anchor bolts. The choice of the bolts proved unfortunate. Iron expands as it rusts. The iron bolts rusted over time, then expanded, and thereby fractured and damaged all of the granite steps beneath the railings in question, causing portions of granite to splinter and fall away. This occurred about ten years ago. The damaged granite remains in place, to the extent that it has not flaked off and disappeared.
Very nearby, things are also not well. In or about the year 2000, a sidewalk was installed beneath the staircase in front of the building. For many years now, the cement and slate of the sidewalk have been breaking up.
Overdue upgrading of heating and plumbing: In the late 1980s and early 1990s, an extensive construction project took place at the courthouse, the only large-scale effort at renewal of a part of the building that has, we believe, taken place in its century of life, which was intended to bring air conditioning to most of the building. Inasmuch as the project required that every room in the building be vacated, the court administration suggested that the occasion be used to upgrade the building’s heating and plumbing. The suggestion was not accepted. Today, therefore, the heating and plumbing will also soon observe their 100th birthday.
For some time, the building has suffered from numerous and widespread steampipe leaks, including leaks from many radiators. The radiators are leaking in hallways and bathrooms. Some pipe work requires that a few floors be fixed at one time. Since it is not practical to fix three or four floors at a time, the court must cap some of the leaks temporarily.
Damaged grillwork: Relatively recently, it became apparent that there was a significant danger that the large iron grillwork at the rear of the courthouse might fall, and that, if it fell, serious injury might be done to staff or visitors. So, the rear of the building was closed entirely for more than 6 months, at considerable inconvenience, until repairs were made. Perhaps this can be taken as an example, 100 years later, of a general state of decline in the once vibrant glory of this courthouse.
It is ironic that the Supreme Court moved from the Tweed Courthouse in 1927 into what was to be and was a much better, up-to-date facility, but today, a few decades after its restoration, the Tweed is gleaming and pristine throughout and the New York County Courthouse most certainly is not.
B. Dangers Threatening the Murals
Potentially serious problems with the murals: Now for the important murals, which were executed and installed between 1934 and 1938. See the comprehensive study of the murals published by the Historical Society of the New York Courts, Art in Troubled Times: The Depression-Era Murals of the New York County Courthouse. In or about the early 1980s, marked degradation in the condition of the fresco on the ceiling of the rotunda became obvious to anyone who looked at it. Water infiltration damaged the surface of the mural, a great deal of the paint went missing, and swaths of white plaster underneath were exposed. Similar damage occurred elsewhere on the first two floors. The situation was clearly a crisis. Expert art restorers were brought in to repair the damage, which required them to repaint some of the areas of the frescoes that had been lost or damaged. New roofing material was added to the roof of the dome over the rotunda. Equipment was installed to attempt to control humidity and to minimize the possibility of future harm.
Alas, today, more than three decades after the work was completed, it appears to us (though we are no experts) that water seepage has again affected portions of the rotunda ceiling and ceilings in some of the radiating corridors on the lower floors. In some portions of the Colonial section of the main painting, for instance, the white undersurface has been exposed. This is an exceedingly worrisome development because the frescoes are fragile and susceptible to damage from water, having been created with the “dry fresco” technique in which pigment, water, and a binding agent are applied to plaster walls. Leaking water can eat away at the paint. The longer the leakage occurs, the more severe the damage will be.
We are not certain about this, but there may also be damage occurring in another section of the rotunda ceiling, in the blue paint of the mural’s sky. To us, it appears that blotching or mottling of the blue paint may be taking place, perhaps due to humidity, which might be affecting something in the composition of the blue pigment. If so, this could be very serious since the sky takes up a substantial part of the surface of the mural. We are perhaps in danger of suffering a great tragedy: the loss of portions of the frescoes.
Further, there are places on the lower floors where loss of paint is evident that might be due to the passage of time and the effects of light and air rather than to water infiltration. Here, too, it seems likely that if such losses are not corrected promptly, they will grow worse as the clock ticks, even if not as quickly as may occur in the case of water infiltration.
In addition, the murals on the upper floors have also suffered damage over the past 90 years. One mural was significantly harmed when water overflowed on the floor above it and then leaked down. Another has a large tear in its surface and there are some other instances of damage to the surface of canvases. In the Ceremonial Courtroom there is some peeling to a fresco. On a number of the murals on the upper floors, paint loss occurred and wall paint being applied by workers dripped onto the canvases. Some of the paintings exhibit spots of dirt or staining. And the paintings, or some of them, may be overdue for cleaning.
An expert painting restorer urgently needs to be retained to make a close study of all of the murals, especially the frescoes. We need an expert analysis of the condition of each mural and a plan to repair such problems as are found to exist, as well as, if and as appropriate, to clean the paintings. In addition, we need to have an experienced engineer study the roofing and windows located near to the frescoes to identify the source of the ongoing leaking, if we are proven to be correct in our hypothesis about what is taking place. A plan needs to be developed to put an end to all leaking in these areas once and for all, as well as other leaking taking place in the building. (We are pleased to note that repair work on some of the roofing (that over the 6th floor) began in January 2026.). Restorers will need to be brought in to repair the damage to the frescoes and all the paintings on the upper floors that have suffered damage of one kind or another. The Depression-era murals are, we believe, too valuable and important to be treated casually or left unprotected against the dangers that threaten them now.
C. Restoring and Renewing the Courthouse for the Next Century
In view of all of the foregoing, with the centenary almost upon us, the time has arrived, we think, to initiate a major project of restoration and renewal at the New York County Courthouse, a project along the lines of the very successful one that brought the Tweed Courthouse back to life. Such a project should encompass, we believe, the repair of all outstanding deficiencies in the exterior and the interior of the building and the restoration of all its features — missing or cracked marble, wooden “substitutes” for missing marble, marble stained by dirt or water, water damage, broken fixtures such as clocks, damaged pendent or fixed lights and lanterns and their appendages, damaged wainscoting, broken chairs or benches, and other failings of a similar kind. The interior needs to be thoroughly cleaned and polished. The heating and plumbing should be upgraded as necessary. And the exterior should be given a deep cleaning.
Looking toward such a renewal project, we respectfully urge that the City and the court undertake now a careful and comprehensive survey and inspection of the building, with the aim of determining the condition of all of the features, fixtures, and aspects, identifying where repairs or upgrading are required, inside and out, and categorizing and prioritizing all needed repairs and replacements. Such a survey and inspection ought also to generate plans and enhanced procedures to ensure that the courthouse, once renovated, will in the decades to come reliably be afforded the protection it deserves.
Further, we urge that the accidents or mistakes of the past that damaged the courthouse be reversed wherever possible. The damaged railings and granite on the staircase should finally be repaired. Exact replicas of all of the pendent lights and ceiling globes that were lost, replaced, or perhaps pilfered over the decades should be fabricated and installed in their original locations throughout the courthouse. If it is not practical to produce exact copies of the Tiffany originals, new lights should be crafted that resemble the originals as much as possible. Similarly, new bronze sconces, exact copies taken from one of the few surviving originals, should be fabricated and installed in the courthouse in place of all of the miserable plastic and tin “fixtures.”
In the doing of all of these things, knowledgeable historical architects should be consulted so that all steps taken are consistent with Lowell’s design of the courthouse and with the artistic choices that he made.
A derivative benefit of this effort at renewal would be that it would provide a unique chance for the court to focus attention on the possibility of improving the condition and utility of underutilized spaces in the building, of which there are a number. In addition to the former library, for which, we believe, plans for a renovation and repurposing have been prepared, there is, for instance, a large room on the ground floor where the County Clerk has stored paper files since 1927, and this room has to a great degree been rendered superfluous with the arrival and expansion of electronic filing. There is a room above the portico, for which Guy Lowell specified a glass roof that remains in place today, and there is extensive subbasement space that was used for decades as civil defense headquarters for the City. All these areas and perhaps others might be refurbished and captured for new and beneficial purposes, such as staff and office space and perhaps an attorneys’ room (Guy Lowell originally designed such a room, but it never came to be). Perhaps even some kind of staff room could be created. The library once served as a de facto social hub, where judges and staff could encounter one another and exchange ideas. Now, in our more enlightened age, with everyone huddled for hours behind computer screens, weeks can go by without judges and attorneys being able to see one another and shares thoughts on legal questions.
With some space being thus rehabilitated, the court could also seize the opportunity to study the interconnection between the physical attributes of the building and courthouse operations. These studies could lead to important improvements in the efficiency and efficacy of the court’s operations. [3]
Only a few years ago, the City itself recognized the need for a project of renovation at the courthouse. New York County is the only City county in which a major new state courthouse has not been built in decades. Instead, there have been endless suggestions over the years for reconfiguring New York County courthouses, but these have not gone anywhere. In 2017 or 2018, the City decided to renovate New York County courthouses, starting with the New York County Courthouse. The plan was apparently knocked off course by the pandemic. Now, as the centennial approaches, is the time to bring about the renovation that is so clearly needed.
As we noted earlier, the court’s Administrative Judge, Hon. Suzanne Adams, has been advocating for repairs and improvements at 60 Centre Street. The roofing repairs now under way and the plans for the renovation and repurposing of the old library have no doubt become realities because of her tireless articulation of the case for the courthouse.[4] There is room for the organized Bar also to play its part in saving the courthouse for the future. Indeed, it will be critical that it do so, as it was before. During the construction project mentioned earlier, a campaign in support of the restoration of the murals, led by Administrative Judge Xavier Riccobono, County Clerk Norman Goodman, and Justice Irving Kirschenbaum, was given substantial aid by a “Committee of One Hundred” composed of Bar leaders and chaired by luminaries of the Bar, Judge Owen McGivern, Milton Gould, and Roy Reardon. Afterward, the decisive importance of the Committee’s work was recognized in a painted plaque that one can see today if one looks closely at the mural on the rotunda ceiling – – that one can see at least for so long as it is not eaten by water.
Conclusion
The coming centennial of the magnificent New York County Courthouse deserves to receive the attention and support of the court, the Unified Court System, Bar groups, the entire Bar, the preservation community, and the City of New York. We hope that a suitable ceremony will be conducted to mark the momentous occasion in the history of justice in New York State that this centennial represents.
The administration of justice in the great courthouse has evolved over the decades. In recent times, for instance, the arrival and expansion of digital technology have had major effects upon the work of the Bar and the functioning of the courts. Legal research today is, of course, done using digital technology, which has put an end to our library, but brought about efficiencies. Electronic filing has transformed law practice and the functioning of the courts in New York State. Mediation programs have caused changes in the way settlements are reached. And other changes and advances will no doubt come. The New York County Courthouse needs to be ready to respond to all such changes over the decades ahead. And so, we hope, too, that in the run-up to and in the aftermath of the centennial, the Bar, the courts, the preservation community, and the City will devote attention and energy to ensuring that the edifice receives a thorough restoration and renewal that will bring back to it the grandeur that it exhibited in February 1927 and that will prepare it well for the century that lies ahead.
Endnotes
[1] For some time, the court’s Administrative Judge, Hon. Suzanne Adams, has, very commendably, with great diligence and energy, been advocating for repairs and improvements at the courthouse.
[2] We noted earlier that, in 1981, the first and second floors of the courthouse were given landmark status. That determination, we think, was incomplete and such protection should be extended to the entire interior.
[3] Perhaps some thought could be given to whether security screening of visitors could be conducted before they enter the building, as was brought about not long ago at the Moynihan courthouse next door and as the U.S. Supreme Court is hoping to achieve soon. If this could be accomplished, it would liberate the main corridor from the necessary but horrendously ugly magnetometers that so seriously blight the beautiful corridor today.
[4] The contributions of Hon. Milton Tingling, County Clerk, Chief Clerk and Executive Officer Peter Sorrento, and Senior Management Analyst Michelle Gonsieski should be noted here as well.