-
An Emergency Gone Awry
Summary:
A woman and her wife had entered into a valid separation agreement awarding the client maintenance in excess of the statutory amount. When deciding on spousal support, the Family Court refused to honor the valid agreement of the parties because it was drafted in contemplation of divorce, and divorces are not decided in Family Court.
What SHOULD Have happened?
The Judge should have had the power to review and consider the Separation Agreement without having to take into consideration the limits imposed by the court structure. The Court’s ability to make a decision should be based on the full facts and circumstances. No litigant should have to face losing their potential rights that another court can offer.
Why Does This Matter?
In a time-sensitive situation, the wife didn’t have the opportunity to have her issue fully heard. In the end, she lost her emergency funding.
What DID Happen:
A woman and her wife had entered into a valid separation agreement awarding the client maintenance in excess of the statutory amount. Neither party commenced a divorce. The client desperately needed financial support and sought spousal support in the Family Court. The Family Court refused to honor the valid agreement of the parties because it was drafted in contemplation of divorce. The adverse party refused to pay the higher amount she had consented to in the agreement, leaving the client without adequate support to qualify for emergency support (a one-shot deal from Human Resources Administration (HRA.)
Court simplification is an opportunity to correct this.
-
Complicated Court System Negatively Impacts New York Businesses
Summary:
The inefficiency of our court system directly impacts the businesses in New York.
The time required to litigate a business dispute, particularly for small businesses, may vary greatly depending on the court where the case is heard. Tens of thousands of New Yorkers are forced to miss work annually by spending unnecessary days in court, impacting both litigants and their employers. Businesses involved in a claim against the state may be compelled to engage in two identical sets of proceedings in different courts, consuming extra time, money, and resources.
The Stories, and Why They Matter
Litigating a business dispute in New York State is a complicated affair because a myriad of courts have jurisdiction over civil matters. The speed with which a case is adjudicated and the business expertise of the judge varies significantly depending on the court in which the case is heard.
Except for cases in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court, businesses – and particularly small businesses, for which the Commercial Division is often not available – cannot be assured that their cases will be heard in a timely or reliable manner.
Each year, tens of thousands of New Yorkers are forced to miss work by spending unnecessary days in court. This is not only a problem for individual litigants, but also for their employers. When a large cross-section of our state’s population is subject to such routine absences, the consequences are directly felt by our state’s employers. This factor makes our state less appealing for businesses.
In any case involving a claim against the state, a business that is a party to the case may be compelled to engage in two sets of proceedings, one in a civil court and an identical one in the Court of Claims. With businesses around the country increasingly concerned about litigation costs and the commitment of management resources to litigation, this presents another reason for a business to steer clear of New York when deciding where to locate its operations.
-
Tenant Lockout
Summary:
A woman, 7 months pregnant, and with 2 young children, 1 of whom is disabled, went to Civil Court to file a petition for being illegally locked out of her apartment. At Civil Court she was told she had to go to Housing Court to file. After laboriously walking to Housing Court, she was told that she had to file her petition back at the Civil Court. Ultimately, the Housing Court clerk did locate the correct form and allowed the tenant to file it there.
What SHOULD Have happened?
The tenant should not have been refused at the first courthouse. Clear and consistent information on where to go to resolve an issue and what will happen there should be made available to all.
Why Does This Matter?
The Court system is confusing and inefficient, not only to the public, but even for people inside the courts. The confusing state of the archaic court structure erodes the public’s trust that the institution can resolve their legal problems.
What DID Happen:
A tenant in the Bronx was locked out of her rent-stabilized apartment by her landlord when she was 7 months pregnant. She could not access her personal and medical documents in the apartment, nor those of her two children. This posed a serious problem because one of her children is disabled and received home health care, and the agency was requesting his updated Medicaid information, which was locked inside the apartment.
The tenant went to Civil Court at 851 Grand Concourse to file an illegal lockout petition and said her landlord was harassing her. But a clerk there told her that since it was a housing-related case, she had to go to Housing Court at 1118 Grand Concourse.
The tenant walked slowly and laboriously over to Housing Court, where she was told by yet another clerk that, although this was the Housing Court, illegal lockout cases aren’t heard there, and she needed to go back to the Civil Court at 851 Grand Concourse to file the petition. The tenant started to cry, and the clerk sympathetically searched for an illegal lockout petition form to let her fill out in Housing Court, and generously offered to help her by letting her file it there, instead of walking 5 blocks back over to the Civil Courthouse.
Court simplification is an opportunity to correct this.
-
Related Issues Heard in Different Courts for No Good Reason
Summary:
It took nearly 2 years and 3 separate courts and judges to get a Child Support agreement, a visitation schedule, an Order of Protection, and a final Divorce Judgment. Even though the husband and wife agreed to consolidate the Family Court matters with the divorce so everything could be heard before one judge in one court, the “system” did not allow it.
What SHOULD Have happened?
The matters brought before the courts were intrinsically related, and should have been addressed at the same time, before one judge.
Why Does This Matter?
There is no rational reason that this family’s legal issues should have taken so long, with so many court appearances, prolonging an already difficult situation in their lives.
What DID Happen:
The woman filed for an order of protection, sole custody, and child support in Family Court. A week later, her husband filed for divorce in Supreme Court. He served her first, but she had filed first. The Family Court gave the client separate return dates for her Child Support (CS) and her Child Visitation (CV)/Order for Protection (O/P) cases.
At the first CV/OP appearance, an attorney for the child and a forensic were assigned. The parties agreed to consolidate all the family court cases with the divorce. The divorce did not hold a preliminary conference until after the Child Support return date. A temporary order was issued at the Child Support court date.
Three weeks later, the parties appeared before the judge in Supreme Court for a preliminary conference. The judge refused to consolidate the CV/OP cases (despite the parties’ consent) because an attorney for the child and forensic had already been assigned. The Child Support case was consolidated.
The OP/CV cases dragged on for a year, which held up the finalizing of the divorce, which had settled earlier. The case went on for about a year and a half between two courts (originally 3), and then took an additional 5 months to get the Judgment of Divorce signed.
Simplification would fix this.