Grants superior court judges the authority to issue a temporary order of protection when an action is pending in a local criminal court

• Democratic24

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Jessica Ramos says this is needed

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 who were protecting themselves, teenagers and young people that get into altercations with parents regardless of who is the initial aggressor, and LGBTQ+ people and populations who present as "other" even when they are defending themselves. TOPs typically last until the under- lying 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 Craword 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 or 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 orders 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, or modify them, when they are appro- priate 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 hearings occur expeditiously so that accused parties can avoid significant harms caused by improper TOPs.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.