Public Awareness

OPDV Bulletin:
The Legal Corner: Removing Barriers
to Justice: Victims Can’t Wait


By Hon. Jonathan Lippman, Chief Administrative Judge of the New York State Courts


Sometimes more is better. In the case of New York’s court structure, it’s not only worse, it’s inexcusable. Most New Yorkers don’t know we have nine trial courts (not including Town and Village Justice Courts), and attorneys themselves would be hard-pressed to name them all or distinguish one from another. Our needlessly complicated structure particularly ill-serves victims of domestic violence and families in crisis, for whom the system is not merely inefficient but perilous: the labyrinth of courts they must navigate impedes resolution of the very cases that are of the utmost urgency, putting these most vulnerable litigants at further risk.


In fact, battered women are all too familiar with many of our courts, for they are routinely in three courts simultaneously--Family Court, a local criminal court and Supreme Court--for proceedings involving criminal domestic violence charges, family offense charges, custody, visitation, support, separation or divorce. This assortment of courts--daunting enough for litigants free from violence in their homes--essentially victimizes battered women all over again. The system invites delay and inconsistent or conflicting court orders, thereby increasing potential danger to them and their children. It is emotionally and financially draining, time-consuming and confusing. Having so many courts doesn’t increase access to justice, it frustrates it.


Chief Judge Kaye and I have submitted a proposal to the Legislature to amend the State Constitution and dramatically simplify the courts. The proposal makes sense out of our court maze and offers meaningful, coherent and timely case-resolution to battered women. Specifically, our proposal consolidates the nine major trial courts into three: Supreme Court, Surrogate’s Court and District Court. Family Court, County Court and the Court of Claims would merge with Supreme Court, and a special division of this reconstituted Supreme Court would exercise jurisdiction over all family matters, criminal domestic violence cases and matrimonial actions. Judges in this division would be trained in the dynamics of domestic violence and all family-related issues, and a public comment period would precede their appointment. “One-family/one-judge” would become the norm, with one judge hearing all cases involving the same parties, making informed and timely decisions.


The special division elevates domestic violence cases to the highest trial-level court. Three categories of domestic violence cases would be transferred to it automatically: (1) all felonies after initial arraignment; (2) misdemeanors brought in criminal courts located in the county seat; and (3) violations and misdemeanors where there is a pending special division case involving the same parties. All other cases could be transferred at the prosecutor’s discretion or removed by Supreme Court, with careful consideration given to the impact of transfer or removal on the victim.

Bringing domestic violence cases and all family-related litigation before one judge vastly improves both process and outcome. It simplifies and expedites the court process for battered women, promoting victim safety and defendant accountability. It makes sense for advocates, lawyers and service providers, because over-stretched resources could be concentrated within the special division rather than divided among multiple courts. A single court would have up-to-date information on all pending cases, producing earlier, more durable solutions to each instead of the protracted, piecemeal adjudication victims now endure.


Some things would remain unchanged, such as immediate court access and the no-fee policy critical to litigants in Family Court proceedings. Judges would be chosen in precisely the same manner as they are now: those elected on a countywide basis would continue to be elected countywide as justices of the new Supreme Court; judges now appointed would, as justices of the new Supreme Court, continue to be appointed; those now elected districtwide would continue to be elected districtwide. And the automatic transfer provisions entail no additional travel for victims; the provisions apply only to those already appearing in courts in the county seat (Supreme Court, Family Court, some criminal courts).


While the Integrated Domestic Violence Courts that opened recently are a step toward court simplification, they represent what we can do patchwork-style, constrained by the current court structure. Only amending the Constitution--which requires passage by two successively elected Legislatures, then voter approval--can fundamentally change our convoluted system.


There have been previous proposals to restructure the courts, but this is the first to focus on the needs of families and victims of domestic violence, whom the current structure serves so poorly. Simplifying that structure will benefit all New Yorkers--making the system easier to use for all litigants and realizing savings through operational efficiencies--but first and foremost it will enable the courts to address the urgent needs of battered women and families in crisis.