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
and terrible stress and heartache. My ultimate goal is to move away from New York so that my children and I can start over in a place where we do not feel scared anymore. But I will be unable to do this until I can save enough money to move – something I will never be able to do if I am forced to live the rest of my life going in circles – appearing before many judges in many courts and having to start from square one every time.” * * * * The following is the testimonial of Dyandria D., a victim of domestic violence who was further victimized by her batterer as a consequence of our state’s confusing court structure. “In 1995, I filed for divorce from my abusive husband on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment in the Queens County Supreme Court. . . . My husband was infuriated over my initiating the divorce action and even more outraged over my seeking meager maintenance and child support payments. In retaliation, and in order to escape his responsibility to support our daughter, my husband stooped so low as to go on record in Supreme Court to deny paternity of our daughter, his only biological child. . . . After the Queens County judge finally ordered DNA testing, my husband dropped the issue. “Next, my husband tried a second scheme to avoid paying child support – he called the child abuse hotline to report that I was abusing our daughter. Presumably, my husband figured that having our daughter placed in state custody would free him of his child support obligation. “The indefensible jurisdictional allocation of authority over family matters between Family Court and Supreme Court can result in . . . [a] frustrating, confusing and wasteful process [that] is carried out in the context of proceedings which are often highly emotional and deeply personal in nature.” – Action Unit No. 4 of the State Bar Association (1979) . . . “The resulting abuse/neglect proceedings were heard in Manhattan Family Court and went on simultaneously with the divorce proceedings in Queens County Supreme Court. . . . In Supreme Court, [my husband] convinced the judge to deny me the meager maintenance I was requesting, on the basis that I was very intelligent and highly capable of procuring any fine job that I sought. In Family Court, however, my husband painted a completely different picture of me for the purpose of preventing me from regaining custody of my child. In Family Court, my A Court System for the Future, February 2007 43
husband told the judge that I was a drug addict and seriously mentally disturbed. . . . “On account of these lies, a Family Court judge granted custody of my daughter to her sexually abusive father, holding that he was the better choice. Yet the Queens County Supreme Court has a voluminous case file containing evidence of his lies and manipulation. . . . No reasonable person would claim that the picture that the Supreme Court had of my husband was one of a good dad – yet the Family Court never heard this side of the story and was convinced by his lies and manipulation to grant him custody of my daughter. “I have not seen my daughter in six years.” 44 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 and 36: Given this reality, it is in the in
- Page 37 and 38: The following is the testimonial of
- Page 39 and 40: “Notwithstanding the results of t
- Page 41: for by HRA) because my welfare bene
- 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
- Page 87 and 88: CURRENT STRUCTURE Court of Appeals
- Page 89 and 90: JSC status, thereby increasing the
- Page 91 and 92: significant authority over our stat
husband told <strong>the</strong> judge that I was a drug addict and seriously<br />
mentally disturbed.<br />
. . .<br />
“On account <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se lies, a Family Court judge granted<br />
custody <strong>of</strong> my daughter to her sexually abusive fa<strong>the</strong>r, holding<br />
that he was <strong>the</strong> better choice. Yet <strong>the</strong> Queens County Supreme<br />
Court has a voluminous case file c<strong>on</strong>taining evidence <strong>of</strong> his lies<br />
and manipulati<strong>on</strong>. . . . No reas<strong>on</strong>able pers<strong>on</strong> would claim that<br />
<strong>the</strong> picture that <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court had <strong>of</strong> my husband was <strong>on</strong>e<br />
<strong>of</strong> a good dad – yet <strong>the</strong> Family Court never heard this side <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
story and was c<strong>on</strong>vinced by his lies and manipulati<strong>on</strong> to grant<br />
him custody <strong>of</strong> my daughter.<br />
“I have not seen my daughter in six years.”<br />
44<br />
A Court System for <strong>the</strong> <strong>Future</strong>, February 2007
Change language