Adds identity theft, larceny and coercion to those offenses over which criminal and family courts have concurrent jurisdiction when involving family or household members; authorizes a court which issues an order of protection to order the respondent to return certain documents, and credit and debit devices to the protected party.
NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER: A7400
SPONSOR: Weinstein (MS) TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the family court act and the criminal
procedure law, in relation to adding identity theft, larceny and coer-
cion as crimes over which family courts and criminal courts have concur-
rent jurisdiction in certain circumstances; and to amend the family
court act, the domestic relations law and the criminal procedure law, in
relation to authorizing courts, upon issuance of an order of protection,
to order a respondent to return certain documents, and debit and credit
devices to the protected party
PURPOSE OF BILL: This legislation will protect victims of domestic
abuse by recognizing, as family offenses, some pervasive and insidious
forms of economic abuse perpetrated against victims by their abusers.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF BILL:
Sections 1, 2 and 10 of the bill amend § 812 of the Family Court Act, §
821 of the Family Court Act and § 530.11 of the Criminal Procedure Law
respectively, to add as family offenses, identity theft in the first,
second and third degree, grand larceny in the third and forth degree,
and coercion in the second degree as set forth in subdivisions one, two
and three of § 135.60 of the penal law.
Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 amend § 446 of the Family Court Act,
§ 551 of the Family Court Act, § 656 of the Family Court Act, § 842 of
the Family Court Act, § 1056 of the Family Court Act, § 240 of the
Domestic Relations Law, § 252 of the Domestic Relations Law, § 530.11 of
the Criminal Procedure Law, § 530.12 of the Criminal Procedure Law
respectively, to specifically provide for the return of certain iden-
tification and financial documents to the protected party as a form of
relief when issuing an order of protection or temporary order of
protection.
JUSTIFICATION: We know that in addition to physical and psychological
tactics, abusers employ economic means to control and otherwise abuse
their victim making it harder for victims to secure their safety.
There is broad recognition among mental health service providers, domes-
tic violence prevention advocates and legal practitioners that in fact,
economic abuse is a form of domestic abuse. Economic abuse is a tactic
commonly used by abusers to control their victim's finances and prevent
them from leaving an abusive relationship. The types of conduct encom-
passing economic abuse range from identity theft and stealing money and
documents, to engaging in other conduct that prevents a victim from
being self-sufficient, including hampering a victim's ability to secure
or retain a job. Such conduct has severe and long lasting consequences
on the safety of a domestic abuse survivor.
This proposal incorporates, in statute, this understanding of economic
abuse as a form of domestic abuse. It aims to provide relief and
protection to victims from some forms of economically abusive conduct
perpetrated by their family or household members that comprise criminal
conduct.
At a hearing on economic abuse as a form of domestic abuse, held on
December 5, 2012, by the New York State Assembly Committees on Judiciary
and Codes, civil legal service providers, domestic violence prevention
advocates and the Office of Court Administration testified how economic
abuse frequently accompanies other forms of domestic abuse perpetrated
by abusers, in the family violence context, to exercise power and
control over their victims and their finances. Among the long list of
types of abuse cited included taking the victim's credit card and other
documents; incurring debt in the survivor's name through false state-
ments or coercion; perpetrating identity theft or otherwise incurring
debt without the survivor's knowledge; preventing the victim from work-
ing; stealing the victim's paychecks or forcing the victim to turn them
over to the abuser; forging the victim's signature; withholding house-
hold finances from the victim; controlling the victim's access to health
insurance; exercising control over the victim's immigration status and
documents; monitoring the victim's computer access and harassing the
victim at work. We heard that these and other forms of economic abuse in
the family violence context are common, and the abusers are uniquely
positioned with access to their victim's private/personal information to
perpetrate economic abuse related crimes. We also learned that seniors
are particularly susceptible to economic abuse by family or household
members because of their vulnerable status.
Domestic economic abuse perpetrated by family or household members has a
long lasting impact. It can take years to recover from the economic harm
such as ruined credit that can haunt families by impacting the victim's
ability to get credit, secure employment or an apartment, finance a
vehicle or obtain a mortgage.
By defining some of the forms of economic abuse that comprise criminal
conduct as family offenses, and by granting family court concurrent
jurisdiction with criminal court over these crimes, this proposal will
enable victims to better address these types of offenses as family
offenses. It will allow relief in the form of orders of protection for
domestic abuse victims that may also be secured in family court. The
legislature has always recognized that the purpose of these civil
proceedings is primarily to protect the physical and emotional safety of
the victim, as well as to end the family disruption.
In addition, although the courts are presently authorized to direct the
return of items and documents when issuing an order of protection to
further the purposes of protection, by specifically permitting the
return of documents to victims of abuse this proposal will help provide
meaningful relief to overcome some of the barriers to economic self-suf-
ficiency imposed by the abuser.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: New bill, 2013.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: None.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Immediately.
