Queens has fewest Family Court judges per capita – a new bill could change that

Queens has the fewest Family Court judges per capita. A new bill advancing through the State Senate could change that. Eagle file photo by Walter Karling

By Jacob Kaye

A bill that would boost the number of Family Court judges in New York City began to advance through the State Senate this week.

The legislation, which would allow the city to appoint a dozen additional judges to the city’s Family Courts, was passed by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

In addition to the 12 new Family Court judges in New York City, the legislation would also allow for two additional Family Court judges in both Westchester and Rockland Counties, and one additional judge in both Erie and Niagara Counties.

The only objections expressed by Senators on the committee on Tuesday were over the fact that the legislation doesn’t add more judges to more counties throughout the state.

The bill, which does not have an Assembly counterpart, was introduced by State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, who chairs the Judiciary Committee. It is the third piece of legislation introduced in as many years to increase the number of judges in the city’s Family Courts, which, like nearly all courts in the state, have struggled to keep up with a backlog that has only been worsened by the pandemic.

The legislation could potentially have a great effect on Queens’ Family Court, which, of all the boroughs, has the fewest Family Court judges per capita. Queens currently has 13 judges serving the borough’s 2.4 million residents.

The Bronx has 21 judges, Brooklyn has 20 judges, Manhattan has 10 judges and Staten Island has four Family Court judges.

In total, there are currently 68 judges sitting on the Family Court bench in the city. Though the current statute authorizes 60 Family Court judicial positions, 11 judges from other courts have been assigned to the city’s Family Courts. Three appointed Family Court judges are currently assigned to other courts, according to the Office of Court Administration.

The legislation being weighed in the Senate would increase the authorized number of judges under the statute to 72.

Should the bill be signed into law, Mayor Eric Adams will be charged with appointing the additional judges. Then, the chief administrative judge, the first deputy chief administrative judge, the deputy chief administrative judge and the city’s Family Court administrative judge “will make county assignments in New York City based…on an analysis of each county’s case volume and workload,” according to an Office of Court Administration spokesperson.

The bill, and others like it, were introduced after a 2022 report by the Franklin H. Williams Judicial Commission on the state’s Family Courts, which found that more resources were needed in what have historically been seen as “second-class court[s].”

Among the recommendations made by the commission, whose goal is “to promote equal access and full participation in the court system by persons and communities of color,” was that the state beef up the number of judges assigned to New York Family Courts.

“Family Courts are currently in crisis, which negatively impacts families, particularly children, who are the most vulnerable,” the 2022 report read. “Further increasing the number of Family Court judges will address unconscionable delays in resolving cases, avoiding longer periods of stay in foster care for children, longer periods of uncertainty in custody cases, longer time for resolution of juvenile delinquency cases, longer periods of anxiety for domestic violence victims, and protracted periods of the stress, instability, and trauma implicit in the cases heard in Family Court.”

The commission recommended adding 15 to 20 more judges to the state’s Family Courts.

Since the report was issued, the state has added five judges to the courts. If Hoylman-Sigal’s bill is signed into law, that number will be brought up to 21 judges.

The legislation has received support from the Office of Court Administration, which Hoylman-Sigal said had been consulted prior to the bill’s introduction.

“We have been discussing the need for additional Family Court judgeships with the governor and legislative leaders and are very appreciative of their consideration for additional judgeships in New York City and other counties in the State,” said Lucian Chalfen, the spokesperson for the OCA. “Additional Family Court judgeships will help the Court System reduce delays in resolution of these important cases, which touch families across the City and the State.”

“The Court’s goal is a fair, just and timely adjudication of these cases,” Chalfen added. “The consideration that the governor and the legislature is giving to these critical positions is very much appreciated and we would like to thank her for her interest and commitment to bringing changes to the Family Courts in our state.”

As of the last court term, there were nearly 80,000 cases pending in the city’s Family Courts. Around 16,000 of those had been in the backlog for over 180 days, surpassing the courts’ standards and goals benchmark.

OCA did not provide the Eagle with the number of cases backlogged per borough.

In the Franklin H. Williams report on the state of New York’s Family Courts, the commission recommended that OCA make “regular statistical reports on Family Court case totals, filings and delays” publicly available on the court system’s website. The court system has not published a report on the state’s Family Courts since 2021.

But the backlog has large implications on the functioning of the courts, the attorneys who work there and their clients, legal professionals say.

Frank Bruno, a matrimonial law attorney, said even prior to the pandemic, backlogs in the city’s Family Courts have caused headaches for court users, judges and attorneys.

“Now and historically, Queen's Family Court and the city’s Family Courts generally, are overburdened – I've heard people use words like overburdened and overstretched,” Bruno said. “There’s not enough resources and we definitely need more judges.”

Bruno said that some of the more complex cases that require a trial are being scheduled eight months in advance, four times as long as they were at times when the courts had less of a backlog.

“For judges to get three days in close succession [to hold a trial], they have to go about eight months out,” the attorney said.

For an lawyer, the backlog could create trust issues with their clients – a client may blame the attorney for the delay, he said.

And for the court users themselves, the delay in case resolution could mean a parent is unable to see their children for an extended period of time or a child’s future remains uncertain.

Bruno cited a case currently on his docket in which he is representing a father who is attempting to increase the number of visits he has with his child, who is in the custody of their mother. The case won’t be heard until September.

The delay, Bruno said, disincentivizes the mother to settle in the case.

“It's an inadvertent benefit really,” he said. “Because it's probably not the way you want people to be benefited by the court system.”

After being passed by the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Hoylman-Sigal’s bill now sits in the Finance Committee.