V:\Ip\Matrimonial-Commission
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 1 2 NEW YORK STATE MATRIMONIAL COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 3 4 5 6 DATE: October 14, 2004 7 9:00 A.M. 8 PLACE: CARDOZO SCHOOL OF LAW 9 55 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10 11 COMMISSION CHAIRWOMAN: 12 HONORABLE SONDRA MILLER, 13 Justice 14 COMMISSION MEMBERS: 15 16 HON. DAMIAN J. AMODEO BRIAN BARNEY, ESQ. 17 SUSAN L. BENDER, ESQ. HELENE K. BREZINSKY, ESQ. 18 HON. MICHAEL V. COCCOMA HON. TANDRA DAWSON 19 ELEANOR M. De COURSEY, ESQ. HON. BRIAN F. DeJOSEPH 20 MICHAEL DIKMAN, ESQ. HON. BETTY WEINBERG ELLERIN 21 MARCIA C. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ. JANET A. JOHNSON, ESQ. 22 JOHN R. JOHNSON, CPA HON. DAVID F. JUNG 23 CHARLOTTE CHO-LAN LEE, ESQ. LAURENCE LOEB, M.D. 24 25 26 2 1 2 COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTINUED: 3 4 5 ALLAN MAYEFSKY, ESQ. 6 KAREN DAWN McGUIRE, ESQ. HON. MARION T. McNULTY 7 PATRICK O'REILLY, ESQ. CARLA A. PALUMBO, ESQ. 8 ROSEMONDE PIERRE-LOUIS, ESQ. SHEILA GINSBERG REISEL, ESQ. 9 HON. ROBERT A. ROSS LAURA RUSSELL, ESQ. 10 HON. EDWARD O. SPAIN HON. ROBERT A. SPOLZINO 11 HON. JEFFREY SUNSHINE HOWARD TEICH, ESQ. 12 HARRIET WEINBERGER, ESQ. DAN WEITZ, ESQ. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MICHELE MALLETTE, RPR CMRS ALVIN A. NERLINO, CSR, RPR 22 Senior Court Reporters 23 24 25 26 3 1 Opening Remarks 2 (Whereupon the hearing commences.) 3 JUDGE MILLER: Good morning everyone. 4 Would everyone please be seated. 5 It is now 9 o'clock and we intend to start 6 on time and keep with our time schedule. 7 First I would like to welcome our 8 speakers, our attendees, the press and others to 9 this first public hearing conducted by the 10 Matrimonial Commission. 11 On the tenth anniversary of our 12 predecessor commission to examine these issues and 13 recognizing the important strides made by that 14 commission's work, our Chief Judge, Judith Kaye, a 15 tireless crusader on behalf of the families and 16 children of this state, has acknowledged that still 17 more work can and must be done to further improve 18 the practice of matrimonial and family law in New 19 York State. Therefore, she has charged this 20 32-member statewide panel with a broad mandate: 21 We are to take a global look at the area 22 of family and matrimonial law as it is practiced in 23 this state and to look at all stakeholders, both 24 inside and outside of the system, for input and 25 guidance, think holistically and innovatively to 26 address and resolve these three main areas: 4 1 Opening Remarks 2 First, reducing and eliminating trauma to 3 parties and to their children. Second, avoid 4 unreasonable expense to the parties; and third, 5 reducing and eliminating delays. 6 This Commission recognizes the urgency and 7 the importance of our mission and considers its 8 mandate a great challenge and a great opportunity. 9 We intend and expect to recommend significant 10 reforms, and we want to assure you that our Chief 11 Judge has pledged to do all that she can possibly do 12 to effectuate reasonable recommendations that will 13 serve to improve the lives of all of those who 14 appear before our matrimonial and family courts. 15 Now, our procedure today: 16 First of all, if you have cell phones, 17 make sure they are turned off. 18 To those of you who have been assigned a 19 time to speak, please be sure that you have signed 20 in at the desk outside. As a courtesy to the other 21 individuals scheduled to speak today, please 22 remember that your remarks are limited strictly to 23 ten minutes. Anyone who has written material to 24 submit for the Commission's consideration should 25 leave at least two copies to the Commission staff at 26 the desk outside. 5 1 Opening Remarks 2 No material will be handed up to the 3 Commission during the course of this hearing. Note 4 that the Commission members may, at times, possibly 5 interrupt you to ask a question or to seek 6 clarification of a point. We will strive to keep 7 this to a minimum as we are most interested in 8 hearing from you about your experiences and your 9 recommendations for improving the system. 10 Notices of future hearings and 11 registration forms are available at the desk 12 outside. Due to what has been an overwhelming 13 response to today's hearing, the Commission expects 14 to hold a second hearing in New York City in the 15 spring of 2005; that date will be announced. Anyone 16 who has requested to speak today but was not 17 scheduled will be considered as having registered 18 for the second New York City hearing and we will 19 notify that person of that date. 20 As stated on the notice of the public 21 hearings, the Commission cannot take testimony from 22 any individual who has a case currently pending in 23 New York State courts. This is necessary to 24 protect the integrity of your pending cases and the 25 work of this Commission. However, such individuals 26 are welcome to submit their comments and suggestions 6 1 Opening Remarks 2 to the Commission at any time, and any identifying 3 details contained therein will be redacted by the 4 Commission staff, however, the substance of the 5 submission will remain in tact. 6 We are now prepared to begin. 7 I think we're a little bit ahead of 8 schedule. That's good. 9 Our first speaker is Debbie Eisenstadt. 10 Is she here? Okay. 11 Would you step up, please? 12 Would you please state your name for the 13 record. 14 MS. EISENSTADT: My name is Debbie 15 Eisenstadt. 16 I have been a matrimonial parallel for 17 over seven years with experience primarily in Nassau 18 and Suffolk. My case appeared before five Supreme 19 Court Justices, a Special Referee, a Family Court 20 judge, a Support Magistrate and the Appellate Court. 21 I will address some of the problems with 22 the system which affect the litigants and present 23 some of my recommendations. 24 1. Litigants are required to attend court 25 appearances despite the fact that they are not privy 26 to discussions that take place in chambers. They 7 1 Eisenstadt 2 are forced to miss work, and in some instances lose 3 their job. The Courts schedule conferences at 4 9:30. The judge may have as many as 45 cases at 5 the same time. The litigants are forced to waste 6 their time and pay their attorneys to sit and wait 7 for hours until they see the law secretary or the 8 judge. Oftentimes they are ordered to return at 9 2 o'clock because the Court was unable to see them 10 at the scheduled morning conference. 11 In the Family Court, when a cases with two 12 pro se litigants is on, they are taken first, while 13 the attorneys, who charge their clients by the hour, 14 must wait. 15 On two occasions, including this past 16 September 11th, When the Court knew that neither the 17 Judge or the law secretary would be in the 18 courthouse until close to 11:00, conferences were 19 scheduled for 9:30. Dozens of attorneys were 20 unnecessarily forced to wait for hours and charge 21 their clients for their time. 22 There are judges who direct parties and 23 counsel to appear on the return date of a motion. 24 The motion papers may not have been received by the 25 Court or the opposing party, yet the parties take 26 time off from work, pay their attorneys to sit and 8 1 Eisenstadt 2 wait in the courtroom, and then go back and wait for 3 two months or more for the decision on the motion. 4 Justice is not equal or just. 5 Oftentimes, decisions are not based on the law and 6 the facts but the "feelings" of the Judge. For 7 example, two applications for pendente lite support 8 were submitted with almost identical circumstances 9 and cases law. One judge ordered significant 10 support and the other minimum support. One Judge 11 awarded counsel fees and the other did not. It's 12 unjust that the same set of circumstances brought 13 before two different judges results in two different 14 rulings. 15 The law is supposed to be judged neutral. 16 However, in a case where a husband's net income was 17 just above the poverty level and he asked for 18 spousal support, the Court ordered him to pay child 19 support for two children, exceeding the statute, 20 denied him spousal support and said he could work 21 more overtime. In another case the wife, working 22 part time and paying child support, asked for 23 spousal support. Her child support for three 24 children was reduced below the statute and her 25 husband was directed to make certain payments on her 26 behalf. She was not directed to work full-time, 9 1 Eisenstadt 2 much less to work overtime. These are examples of 3 gender bias in a system which purports to be gender 4 neutral. 5 In cases of contempt many judges, despite 6 the law, do not find contempt and merely direct the 7 party to do what he or she was ordered to do and no 8 counsel fees are awarded.