Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts
Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts
community, which rightly expects efficiency at all levels of government. Reflecting these concerns, a statewide coalition of business organizations has recently come together specifically to support court restructuring. These groups include the Business Council of New York State, the Partnership for New York City, the Long Island Association, the Westchester County Association and the Metropolitan Development Association of Central New York (collectively known as the Business Coalition for Court Efficiency). In a letter of support (included in Appendix iii), this coalition states that “[a] confusing and redundant court system is not good for the state economy. The business community will support efforts to secure amendment of the New York State Constitution to create a two-tier court system that will greatly improve the administration of justice and result in significant savings in time and expense to individuals and business.” A Specific Example: Families in Crisis New York’s court structure can have disastrous consequences for some of our most vulnerable citizens. Families, particularly poor families, can spend years shuttling back and forth between Family Court, Supreme Court, and Criminal Court, only to end up with inconsistent results arising out of the same or substantially similar facts. Divorce actions in New York State are brought in Supreme Court, yet other family disputes such as custody and visitation proceedings are often adjudicated in Family Court – and rarely is the judge presiding over one part of a family’s case educated about what has happened in another part of the same case. Not only is this inconvenient and expensive for families that cannot afford the waste of time or money, it can also be dangerous, as illustrated below, particularly for women and children who have been victims of abuse. A few real-life examples illustrate this point: “Specific instances of the horror presented by the manner in which we divide resolution of family disputes are not hard to find.” – Michael Cardozo, October 1997 * * * * A Court System for the Future, February 2007 37
The following is the testimonial of Orchid G., an immigrant from Egypt who moved to New York City with her husband in 1994. Within a few months of their arrival, Orchid’s husband began to abuse her, both verbally and physically. Following a particularly brutal episode which sent her to the hospital, Orchid moved to a domestic violence shelter and began to seek help through the New York State court system. Orchid’s testimony presents a cautionary tale for all that is wrong with the present structure. “I had seven separate cases in three different courts before four different judges. I had custody, visitation, and cross order of protection cases in the Family Court before one judge; I had a child support case in the Family Court before a hearing examiner; I had a case against my husband in Criminal Court; and he had a case against me in Criminal Court before a different judge. “Over the next four years, there were even more cases before even more judges. I went to Supreme Court for a divorce. I went to Civil Court in a case that my husband’s brother brought against me to harass me. After I got child support, my husband refused to pay, so I had to bring three more cases against him before the hearing examiner in Family Court. Then, when the judge in Family Court finally denied my husband unsupervised visitation, his mother brought a case against me. “In five years I had fourteen separate cases in seven different courtrooms before seven different judges. Each time I appeared before a different judge I had to tell my story over again. I can’t tell you how painful it was to tell my story over and over. It made it impossible for me to recover from the traumatic events I had survived. “It also made it impossible for me to get on with my life— to continue my education and find a job. In the child support case alone, I have been in court 45 times, each time for an entire day. For the custody, visitation, and order of protection cases, I’ve made more than 100 court appearances, usually for an entire day. Many times I tried to take courses in a community college, but each time I had to drop out because the court cases made me 38 A Court System for the Future, February 2007
- Page 1 and 2: ACOURT SYSTEM FOR THE FUTURE: THE P
- Page 3 and 4: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS On July 17, 2006,
- Page 5 and 6: A. Vincent Buzard Partner, Harris B
- Page 7 and 8: Counsel to the Commission</
- Page 9 and 10: More fundamentally, the fragmented
- Page 11 and 12: “New York has the most complex an
- Page 13 and 14: “For 30 years, New York’s trial
- Page 15 and 16: — SECTION ONE — THE CURRENT STR
- Page 17 and 18: system grew exponentially. By the t
- Page 19 and 20: issue from the Supreme Court or a c
- Page 21 and 22: igation, family-related matters or
- Page 23 and 24: Article VI of the New York State Co
- Page 25 and 26: The Appellate Division was establis
- Page 27 and 28: CURRENT STRUCTURE Court of Appeals
- Page 29 and 30: state Constitution on November 4, 1
- Page 31 and 32: jurisdiction would become Superior
- Page 33 and 34: In short, when it comes to the stru
- Page 35: Given this reality, it is in the in
- Page 39 and 40: “Notwithstanding the results of t
- Page 41 and 42: for by HRA) because my welfare bene
- Page 43 and 44: husband told the judge that I was a
- Page 45 and 46: Costs to Individuals, Businesses, M
- Page 47 and 48: appear as witnesses), or to family
- Page 49 and 50: The Tweed Commission</stron
- Page 51 and 52: Court upstate as well as the transf
- Page 53 and 54: y the Legislature and were approved
- Page 55 and 56: proposed a concurrent resolution to
- Page 57 and 58: efforts), make the case for reform
- Page 59 and 60: Groups representing the indigent al
- Page 61 and 62: Commercial Division of the New York
- Page 63 and 64: safety and facilitate access to spe
- Page 65 and 66: Courts in Hempstead and Syracuse al
- Page 67 and 68: The details of our proposal are ref
- Page 69 and 70: continue to handle such matters whi
- Page 71 and 72: We recognize that some have express
- Page 73 and 74: The diagram below outlines the stru
- Page 75 and 76: Under a “merger in place” plan,
- Page 77 and 78: Judicial District. By contrast, jud
- Page 79 and 80: Today, the Housing Court, as this P
- Page 81 and 82: The issues concerning the Justice C
- Page 83 and 84: five years. 158 Therefore, it is no
- Page 85 and 86: of preservation. The use of citatio
The following is <strong>the</strong> testim<strong>on</strong>ial <strong>of</strong> Orchid G., an<br />
immigrant from Egypt who moved to <strong>New</strong> <strong>York</strong> City with her<br />
husband in 1994. Within a few m<strong>on</strong>ths <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir arrival, Orchid’s<br />
husband began to abuse her, both verbally and physically.<br />
Following a particularly brutal episode which sent her to <strong>the</strong><br />
hospital, Orchid moved to a domestic violence shelter and began<br />
to seek help through <strong>the</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>York</strong> <strong>State</strong> court system. Orchid’s<br />
testim<strong>on</strong>y presents a cauti<strong>on</strong>ary tale for all that is wr<strong>on</strong>g with <strong>the</strong><br />
present structure.<br />
“I had seven separate cases in three different courts before<br />
four different judges. I had custody, visitati<strong>on</strong>, and cross order <strong>of</strong><br />
protecti<strong>on</strong> cases in <strong>the</strong> Family Court before <strong>on</strong>e judge; I had a<br />
child support case in <strong>the</strong> Family Court before a hearing examiner;<br />
I had a case against my husband in Criminal Court; and he had a<br />
case against me in Criminal Court before a different judge.<br />
“Over <strong>the</strong> next four years, <strong>the</strong>re were even more cases<br />
before even more judges. I went to Supreme Court for a divorce.<br />
I went to Civil Court in a case that my husband’s bro<strong>the</strong>r brought<br />
against me to harass me. After I got child support, my husband<br />
refused to pay, so I had to bring three more cases against him<br />
before <strong>the</strong> hearing examiner in Family Court. Then, when <strong>the</strong><br />
judge in Family Court finally denied my husband unsupervised<br />
visitati<strong>on</strong>, his mo<strong>the</strong>r brought a case against me.<br />
“In five years I had fourteen separate cases in seven<br />
different courtrooms before seven different judges. Each time I<br />
appeared before a different judge I had to tell my story over<br />
again. I can’t tell you how painful it was to tell my story over and<br />
over. It made it impossible for me to recover from <strong>the</strong> traumatic<br />
events I had survived.<br />
“It also made it impossible for me to get <strong>on</strong> with my life—<br />
to c<strong>on</strong>tinue my educati<strong>on</strong> and find a job. In <strong>the</strong> child support<br />
case al<strong>on</strong>e, I have been in court 45 times, each time for an entire<br />
day. For <strong>the</strong> custody, visitati<strong>on</strong>, and order <strong>of</strong> protecti<strong>on</strong> cases,<br />
I’ve made more than 100 court appearances, usually for an entire<br />
day. Many times I tried to take courses in a community college,<br />
but each time I had to drop out because <strong>the</strong> court cases made me<br />
38<br />
A Court System for <strong>the</strong> <strong>Future</strong>, February 2007
Change language