Authorizes courts to hold evidentiary hearings for a temporary order of protection in certain circumstances and grants superior court judges the authority to issue a temporary order of protection when an action is pending in a local criminal court in certain circumstances.
NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER: A4558B
SPONSOR: Quart TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to the issuance
of temporary orders of protection when an action is pending in a local
criminal court
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
This bill will add a section to the criminal procedure law that will
enable accused parties in criminal proceedings to request a hearing when
temporary orders of protection are issued against them. These temporary
orders can cause homelessness, job loss, immigration consequences, and
family separation. This change will give judges the opportunity to
assess information and determine whether temporary orders are necessary
to protect the parties.
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:
Section 1 creates a new section 530.15 of the criminal procedure law.
Section 2 amends subdivisions 1 and 2 of section 530.30 of the criminal
procedure law.
Section 3 sets the effective date.
JUSTIFICATION:
During New York criminal court arraignments, judges issue full temporary
orders of protection ("TOPs") as a matter of course in nearly every case
where there is a complaining witness. These orders require the person
charged to stay away from the home and place of business of the
complaining witness. Prosecutors ask for TOPs based almost entirely on
the representation of law enforcement officers who act with incomplete
information and biases. As a result, TOPs are often issued against
survivors of intimate partner violence who were protecting themselves,
teenager and young people that get into altercations with their parents
regardless of who is the initial aggressor, and LGBTQ+ people and popu-
lations who present as "other" even when they are defending themselves.
TOPs typically last until the underlying case resolves-a process that
can take months or even years-and many are issued against the wishes of
the protected parties. Some are even issued against both or multiple
parties.
Unlike many other states and the District of Columbia, New York does not
have a codified process for accused persons or protected parties to be
heard when these orders are issued. Recognizing this, the New York
Appellate Division, First Department recently ruled in Matter of Craw-
ford v. Ally (June 24th, 2021), that when a temporary stay-away order is
issued which implicates a defendant's due process rights, the Criminal
Court should conduct a "prompt evidentiary hearing," thereafter. The
case bears the name of Shamika Crawford, who was rendered homeless by a
stay-away order, removed from her own New York City Housing Authority
apartment and separated from her children for nearly three months. This
hearing would offer an opportunity for a judge to examine the facts more
closely than they could at arraignment to decide if the order should
remain in place, or be limited. However, the Crawford decision leaves
numerous details open to interpretation by the courts, and as a result
the ruling has been undermined and applied in an inconsistent manner.
The Promoting Pre-Trial (PromPT) Stability Act codifies Crawford's hold-
ing into law while clarifying key details of hearings. This bill ensures
that due process is complied with and that there is uniform application
of the decision across the state. It allows judges to respond to the
unique needs of a particular case of relationship, while also allowing
families to work out their differences, and teenagers and young adults
to stay in their family's homes. Importantly, judges will make deci-
sions as to the propriety of stay-away order based upon more complete
information than they have at arraignment.
Notably, this bill will not lead to the vacatur of all TOPs. Prosecu-
tors are still authorized to ask for TOPs, and judges will have
discretion to issue these orders when they are appropriate and necessary
for the safety of the protected party. Further, this legislation only
concerns criminal court TOPs, parties can continue to petition family
court for civil orders of protection. This bill does not require
protected parties to testify in these hearings, but it does give them an
opportunity to be heard if they choose. Further, this bill ensures hear-
ings occur expeditiously so that accused parties can avoid significant
harms caused by improper TOPs.
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
2019-2020: A7633 referred to Codes
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None to the state
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Immediately
