IGR Committee
IGR Committee Members Present: Chair: Jim Maisano; Legislators: George Latimer
Others Present: Official Guests: Hon. Joan Cooney, Supervising Judge, Westchester County Family Court; Lianne Archer, Westchester Community Network, New Rochelle; Barbara Banks, Westchester Community Network, Mount Vernon; Rachel Halpern, Legal Center Director, My Sisters’ Place; Barbara Finkelstein, Hudson Valley Legal Services; Bert Littlejohn, Mount Vernon Family Ties; Assemblywoman Amy Paulin; Other Guests: See attachment; Administration: None; County Departments: None; Staff: David Simpson
I. MINUTES:
Without objection, the minutes of the May 17, 2004 meeting of the Committee on Intergovernmental Relations were approved.
II. DISCUSSION AND ACTION:
Discussion on Proposed Closing of the New Rochelle Family Court
Supervising Judge Joan Cooney of the Westchester County Family Court was present to testify to some details of the New York State Office of Court Administration’s planned closing of the New Rochelle branch office of the Westchester Family Court. Judge Cooney highlighted the following main points:
Discussions of court consolidation of the three existing family court facilities (White Plains, Yonkers and New Rochelle) have been ongoing for four years
The New Rochelle branch has jurisdiction over New Rochelle, Pelham and Mount Vernon, and under the proposed plan people in those communities would be sent to the White Plains Family Court
Original discussions tested the idea of a consolidated Southern Westchester branch, i.e. combining the Yonkers and New Rochelle branches, in addition to the existing White Plains branch
No discussions have included closing either the White Plains or Yonkers family court facilities
The New Rochelle and Yonkers branches have physical facilities that are in terrible condition, often with no heat or air conditioning and without ample parking
Over the last four years, certain cases have been pulled from the New Rochelle branch up to the White Plains branch, specifically neglect and abuse cases—This was done 1) because of an increased effort to specialize judges to a specific area of the family court in order to streamline operations and to cut down on delays before cases are heard, and 2) for consistency with plantiffs
The one judge assigned to the New Rochelle branch, Judge David Klein, is not always available because of drug treatment training
Additional services to petitioners are available in White Plains, but are not necessarily available in New Rochelle, such as the Drug Treatment Court, the Integrated Domestic Violence Court and the Pace Women’s Justice Center programs
Probation Department has requested that all PINS cases be moved to White Plains
Only the court piece of the puzzle is proposed to be moved out of New Rochelle, but probation resources will continue to be kept in the community
The proposed move is a few months away—probably January 2005
Mr. Maisano inquired about the process involved in the decision to move the New Rochelle court. Judge Cooney responed that the decision was based on the caseload numbers after a request for funding for a new building was turned down by New York State. She indicated that Administrative Judges Plumador, Nicolai and herself were the major decision makers in the process.
Assemblywoman Paulin asked about the case distribution among the three family court branches. Judge Cooney indicated that from January to September 2004, judges’ petitions were as follows: White Plains – 5,100; Yonkers – 5,400; New Rochelle – 1,500.
Concerns were raised by several committee members that taking the court out of New Rochelle might cause access problems for those currently served by the court, specifically victims of domestic violence who need immediate attention and those with transportation problems that would be forced to travel to White Plains.
Judge Cooney reiterated that moving the court out of New Rochelle was not just a matter of efficiency, but would result in better service in White Plains for those who come to the family court.
The committee opened up the discussion to comments from the many members of the public who were present for the meeting.
Mr. Maisano proposed that there be a follow up joint committee meeting of the two committees to discuss the matter further and to hear from the Department of Probation. Discussion ended without action.
III. RECEIVE AND FILE:
None.
IV. ADJOURN:
On the motion of Mr. Latimer, seconded by Mr. Maisano and without objection, the committee adjourned.
Text: 
Print:
