Conference Report: The New York City Housing Court in the 21st Century: Can It Better Address the Problems Before It?
Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal - Nbr. III-3, January 2006
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/374634
Id. vLex: VLEX-374634
I. Introduction. A. Conference Purpose and Format. B. Description of the Working Groups 1. Working Group I: Pre-Adjudication Steps in the Housing Court. 2. Working Group II: The Adjudicative Process and the Role of the Court. 3. Working Group III: Right to Counsel. 4. Working Group IV: Litigants of Diminished Capacity. 5. Working Group V: Preserving the Housing Stock: Are There New Ways to Approach This and Measure Results? 6. Working Group VI: Social Services and Volunteer Programs in the Court. C. Conference Follow Up. II. Report of Working Group I: Pre-Adjudication Steps in the Housing Court. A. The Process. B. Commencement of Proceedings. 1. Quick Access to Necessary Information. 2. Disclosure by Petitioners of a Perceived Need for a Guardian Ad Litem. C. Information for Litigants. 1. Pre-Litigation. 2. During Litigation. D. Information for Court Personnel. III. Report of Working Group II: The Adjudicative Process and the Role of the Court . A. The Process and the Issues Addressed. B. Identifying the Problems Faced by Pro Se Litigants. 1. Lack of Information. 2. Protocols for Court Oversight. C. Addressing the Problems. 1. The Proper Role of the Judge in General and in Addressing the Problems of the Pro Se Litigant. D. Recommendations. 1. Best Practices. 2. Study. 3. Judicial Training and Continuing Legal Education. 4. Judicial and Attorney Responsibility. 5. Explanation of Court Procedures. 6. Allocution of Stipulations. 7. The Court's Role at Trials/Evidentiary Hearings with Pro Se Litigants. IV. Report of Working Group III: Right to Counsel. A. Context. B. Working Group Discussion. 1. Disparity in Representation.2. Representation Makes a Difference. 3. Eviction and Homelessness. 4. Costs: Direct and Indirect. 5. Judges and the Administration of Justice. 6. Landlords. 7. Legality. C. Implementation. D. Recommendations. V. Report of Working Group IV: Litigants of Diminished Capacity. A. Introduction. B. Identification of Litigants with Diminished Capacity. C. Right to Counsel. D. Education of Court Personnel. E. Resources and Accommodations. F. Guardian Ad Litem Project. G. Additional Issues. VI. Report of Working Group V: Preserving the Housing Stock: Are There New Ways to Approach This and Measure Results? A. Introduction. B. Issues Discussed. C. Recommendations. 1. Unanimous Recommendations. 2. Other Issues and Non-Unanimous Recommendations. VII. Report of Working Group VI: Social Services and Volunteer Programs in the Court
Conference Report: The New York City Housing Court in the 21st Century: Can It Better Address the Problems Before It?
The New York County Lawyers' Association (NYCLA) was founded in 1908 in response to the then prevailing exclusion of lawyers from bar membership because of their race, religion, gender or ethnicity. For almost 100 years, NYCLA's mission has been to promote the public interest by seeking reforms in the law and in the administration of justice, elevate the standards of integrity and professionalism, and provide free legal services to the indigent and others in need. With more than 8,500 members, NYCLA provides significant leadership on public policy and access-to-justice issues, ranging from adequate compensation for lawyers representing poor people, to a civil right to counsel, to diversity in the profession.
I. Introduction. On October 28-29, 2004, the Justice Center of the New York County Lawyers' Association (NYCLA), chaired by former Dean of Fordham University School of Law, John Feerick, hosted a conference on the New York City Housing Court, "The New York City Housing Court in the Twenty-First Century: Can It Better Address the Problems Before It?" (the "Conference"). The Conference, occasioned by the court's 30th anniversary, considered how the Housing Court is facing the challenges of the new century, in light of ever-changing social and economic conditions, and whether it is well prepared to meet these challenges in the coming decades. The Conference examined the court's role in responding not only to the legal questions that come before it, such as housing conditions, holdovers, and nonpayment of rent, but also to the myriad social and financial problems that underlie many Housing Court cases-problems that, if unaddressed, may lead to homelessness. A. Conference Purpose and Format. The Conference, an invitational forum, had eighty-two participants representing a broad array of experience and perspectives and drawn from the landlord and tenants bars, the judiciary, government, legal academia, and public advocacy organizations. The overarching goal of the Conference was to identify and propose ways in which the Housing Court might better meet its future challenges and address the legal and social issues that come before it. Co-sponsored by the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Columbia University School of Law, and the Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics of Fordham University School of Law, the Conference began the evening of October 28 with welcome remarks by Norman L. Reimer, President of NYCLA, and a keynote address by Judge Fern A. Fisher, Administrative Judge of the Civil Court of the City of New York. The opening remarks were followed by a reception for current and former Housing Court judges. On October 29, after remarks by Honorable Jonathan Lippman, Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts, plenary panelists provided an overview of the critical issues confronting the Housing Court. The panelists included Judge Fern A. Fisher, moderator; John D. Feerick, Chair, NYCLA Justice Center, and former Dean, Fordham University School of Law; Judge Marcy S. Friedman, New York State Supreme Court; Maria Mottola, Executive Director, New York Foundation; Conrad A. Johnson, Columbia University School of Law; and Jonathan Newman, Finkelstein Newman LLP. Conference participants then spent the rest of the day working in small groups, each of which discussed one of the following broad subjects concerning the Housing Court and its work: - Pre-Adjudication Steps in the Housing Court - The Adjudicative Process and the Role of the Housing Court - Right to Counsel - Litigants of Diminished Capacity - Preserving the Housing Stock: Are There New Ways to Approach This and Measure Results? - Social Services and Volunteer Programs in the Housing Court In a closing plenary session moderated by Professor Ellen Yaroshefsky of Cardozo School of Law, the working groups reported to conference participants on the recommendations for change that had emerged from their deliberations. While each of the working groups had a distinct mission, there were often common issues and complementary recommendations. All of the groups discussed the Housing Court's overwhelming workload and the problems engendered by summary proceedings. One notable result of the Conference was that it presented a workable proposal for a right to counsel in Housing Court cases that could result in eviction. This conference report, which contains the working groups' reports and recommendations, will be used to fashion a plan of action that a NYCLA task force will seek to implement. B. Description of the Working Groups 1. Working Group I: Pre-Adjudication Steps in the Housing Court. Working Group I examined the pre-adjudication process: the stages of a housing case from the first notice that a claim exists, up to, but not including, the stage when the claim is formally presented to a judge or jury for adjudication. The pre-adjudication pro...
If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here
