January 2008

THE CITIZEN COURT MONITORING

PROGRAM’S

REPORT ON THE DUTCHESS COUNTY

TOWN AND VILLAGE COURTS

January 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

A. Citizen Court Monitoring

B. Monitoring Town and Village Justice Courts

II.

Project: Court Monitoring in Dutchess County Town and Village Justice Courts

A. Dutchess County and Its Town and Village Justice Courts

III. Monitors’ Observations of Dutchess County Town and Village Justice Courts

A. Proceedings Observed

B. Court Facilities

C. Court Operations

Maintenance of Order

Caseload and Scheduling

D. Criminal Cases

Arraignments

Appointment of Attorneys for Indigent Defendants

Juvenile Defendants in the Town and Village Justice Courts

Domestic Violence Cases

E. Traffic Cases

F. Civil Cases

Landlord-Tenant cases

IV. Summary of Recommendations

Appendix I

Monitoring Form

Appendix II

Listing of Number of Observations by Court

Appendix III

Additional Court Facilities Observations

Appendix III

Additional Observations on Justice Courts Observed

Dutchess County Court Monitors

Acknowledgments

INTRODUCTION

The Fund for Modern Courts is an independent, statewide court reform organization

committed to improving the judicial system for all New Yorkers. Our court monitoring program,

along with our citizens jury project, education and advocacy programs, identifies problems that

affect our State’s courts and offer information and recommendations about how to make the

courts more effective, fair and accessible to all residents of the state. In addition, by building

relationships with community members, other advocacy groups, and state and local governments

Modern Courts works with all who want to ensure an independent and highly qualified

judiciary.

This report describes the results of Modern Courts’ court monitoring program of Town

and Village Justice Courts in Dutchess County initiated and completed during the fall of 2007.

Citizen Court Monitoring

The Citizen Court Monitoring program, which began in 1975, is a statewide program that

recruits non-lawyer, local volunteers to observe court proceedings in their communities. The

monitors' findings and recommendations are published by Modern Courts and released to the

public, court administrators, judges, court personnel, government officials1, lawmakers, bar

associations, civic groups, and the media.

Monitors are local volunteers who look at the courts from an average citizen's viewpoint,

thereby providing a fresh, common-sense perspective on how courts serve the public. In the past,

Modern Courts' court monitoring program has been influential in publicizing problems that exist

in the courts; urging those responsible for the courts to make improvements, particularly in

facilities and court operations; and educating citizens about the daily functions and operation of

1 This report will be shared with the town and village governments that are responsible for the operations of the

Town and Village Justice Courts in Dutchess County.

their courts in order to create a constituency of citizens who understand the problems facing the

court system and who support efforts to assist the courts to function efficiently and effectively.

Monitoring Town and Village Justice Courts

Recently, serious questions have been raised and concerns expressed about the nature,

operations and quality of New York State’s Justice Court system in government studies such as

the May 2006 report of the Office of the State Comptroller that identified the mishandling of

money in one third of the justice courts audited and urged reform of their budgetary management

and operations systems, and the June 2006 report of The Spangenberg Group on the status of

indigent defense in New York2.

In addition, the release in November 2006 of the Action Plan for the Justice Courts,

prepared by the New York State Unified Court System, focused public attention on the

significant needs of the Town and Village Justice Courts and outlined dozens of new initiative

and programs to assist those courts.

During 2007, Chief Judge Kaye’s Commission on the Future of the Courts (chaired by

Carey Dunne) held extensive hearings and traveled across the State to study the Justice Courts

and provide recommendations for reform. Criminal defense attorneys, civil legal services, court

clerks, individual judges, victims of domestic violence, lobbyists for mayors and towns,

government agencies, bar associations and others have addressed the Justice Court issues.

Articles in local newspapers and in the New York Times also highlighted problems within the

Town and Village Justice Court system.

As a result of these questions and concerns, Modern Courts determined that it was

essential to a full and fair discussion of those justice courts, which have been described as “the

2 Prepared for New York Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye’s Commission on the Future of Indigent Defense Services.

face of justice for a great many New Yorkers3,” for local citizens to monitor their Justice Courts

and report their findings.

Town and Village Justice Courts

Located in every county (57 in number) outside of New York City, there are more than

1,200 Town and Village Justice Courts, with nearly 2,200 judges throughout New York State.

Town and Village Justice Courts hear a broad range of criminal and civil cases. The criminal

matters include a wide variety of crimes (e.g. assaults, criminal trespasses, and petit larcenies),

domestic violence cases, and driving while intoxicated (DWI) cases, in addition to traffic and

other violations, and arraignments and other preliminary hearings for felony cases. The civil

jurisdiction includes cases involving amounts up to $3000, landlord tenant matters, and local

ordinance violations.

Although local Town and Village Justice Courts are constitutionally part of the New

York’s Unified Court System, these courts are funded and administered by local town and

villages. This means that the locality funds, operates and maintains its court facilities, hires it

own personnel, provides its own security, and determines the Justice Court’s hours of operation.

Many of these justice courts meet in the evenings; some meet as infrequently as once a month.

Justice Courts are unique in several other ways – they are the only courts in which non-

attorney judges4, who are elected, are allowed to preside after completing a brief Office of Court

Administration (OCA) training course; and they are not “courts of record,” meaning verbatim

recording of proceedings are not required, which makes it difficult to have cases reviewed by

appellate courts or ensure that litigants’ rights are protected.

3 Judith S. Kaye and Jonathan Lippman, New York State Unified Court System, Action Plan for the Justice Courts,

Preface (2006).

4 Approximately 72 % of the town and village judges in New York State are non-lawyers.

II.

PROJECT: COURT MONITORING IN DUTCHESS COUNTY TOWN AND VILLAGE JUSTICE

COURTS

Modern Courts determined that the monitoring of all the Justice Courts in all the counties

of the State would provide useful information for the general public, policy makers, judicial

administrators, the town and village governments that support these courts and, most

importantly, the residents who use these courts. But because of limited resources Modern Courts

decided to initiate its Town and Village court monitoring program in Dutchess County5. Our goal

was to monitor as many of the Justice Courts within Dutchess County during a three month

period as practical, so that an initial report could be issued in early 2008. Subsequently, the

monitoring program would be expanded so that additional reports on the justice courts of other

counties could be issued during 2008.

Prior to the start of monitoring in Dutchess County, Modern Courts recruited volunteer

monitors and held a general informational and training program for them about the Town and

Village Court system at the Hyde Park Library on September 19, 2007. At this meeting, Hyde

Park Town Court Judge David Steinberg spoke to the monitors about the handling of criminal

proceedings in the Justice Courts, which included a discussion of setting bail and the assignment

of counsel for indigent defendants. Kathleen Healey, Legal Services of the Hudson Valley’s

Managing Attorney for Dutchess, Putnam and Ulster County, spoke to the monitors about the

issuance of orders of protection and other matters related to both domestic violence and landlord-

tenant proceedings in the Town and Village Courts.

The training provided the local volunteers with an overview of their local Town and

Village Justice Courts, and instructed them on monitoring procedures, including the use of

5 A court monitoring program also was initiated in Saratoga County, and a report on that county is being prepared.

Modern Courts’ evaluation form6 by the volunteer monitors during the project. A Town and

Village Justice Courts monitoring handbook was developed that provided maps, driving

directions, addresses and hours of operations of all 27 Justice Courts as well as background

material on the distinct nature of the Town and Village Justice Court and the types of cases to be

heard in these courts.

On December 11, 2007, a wrap-up meeting was held, during which the volunteers

provided additional comments regarding their observations of the Town and Village Justice

Courts and feedback on the monitoring forms and other aspects of the monitoring process. This

meeting included a presentation by Dutchess County Public Defender David Goodman on his

organization’s provision of legal services to indigent defendants across Dutchess County.

Dutchess County and Its Town and Village Justice Courts

Dutchess County has a population of approximately 295,146 according to the 2006

United States Census Bureau estimates, which represent a 5.4 % increase from its population of

280,150 in the year 2000. The largest towns in the county are Poughkeepsie (39,254) followed

by Wappinger (22,292), East Fishkill (22,101), and Hyde Park (21,230). The other towns have

significantly smaller populations. The largest villages are Wappingers Falls (4,605) and

Rhinebeck (2,275).

Dutchess County has a total of 27 Town and Village Justice Courts. There are 20 Town

Justice Courts: Amenia, Beekman, Clinton, Dover, East Fishkill, Fishkill, Hyde Park, LaGrange,

Milan, North East, Pawling, Pine Plains, Pleasant Valley, Poughkeepsie, Red Hook, Rhinebeck,

Stanford, Union Vale, Wappinger, and Washington. And there are 7 Village Justice Courts:

Fishkill, Millbrook, Pawling, Red Hook, Rhinebeck, Tivoli, and Wappingers Falls.

6 This form (“monitoring form”) was developed specifically for the monitoring of Town and Village Justice Courts

and includes suggestions from local volunteers, attorneys and other advocates who work in these courts. A copy of

the monitoring form is attached as Appendix I.

In Dutchess County, there are 51 Town and Village judgeships occupied by 48 judges.

Three judges sit in multiple courts.

III.

MONITORS’ OBSERVATIONS OF DUTCHESS COUNTY TOWN AND VILLAGE JUSTICE

COURTS

After analysis of all 64 reports submitted by the monitors, Modern Courts’ staff

organized those observations into the following subject matter areas:

Proceedings Observed, including number and types of cases observed;

Court Facilities, including access for disabled persons, security, signage and parking

concerns;

Court Operations, including maintenance of order, and caseload and scheduling;

Criminal Cases, including arraignment proceedings, appointment of attorneys for

indigent defendants, proceedings involving young defendants, and domestic violence

cases;

Traffic Cases; and

Civil Cases, including landlord-tenant cases.

Proceedings Observed

During the monitoring period, monitors observed proceedings in 25 of the 27 Town and

Village Justice Courts located in Dutchess County; monitors did not observe proceedings in the

Pawling or Red Hook Village courts. Monitors observed 64 courts sessions in the Town and

Village Justice Courts in Dutchess County. Individual courts were monitored within a range of

from one to five times during the project.7

The total number of proceedings observed for the monitoring period (September 19, 2007

to December 12, 2007) was 2801. Of that number;

• 60.3% (1689) involved criminal matters, including 51 (3.1%) domestic

violence cases,

• 37.3% (1044) were traffic cases,

• 1.4% (40) involved general civil matters,

• 0.55% (16) were housing cases (Landlord/Tenant), and

• 0.43% (12) other cases (i.e. ordinance violations/ zoning, etc).

It is notable that in 23.56 % (398 of the 1689) of the criminal cases observed by the

monitors, the defendant did not have legal representation during the proceedings. This is of

considerable concern given that representation by an attorney is a constitutional right and critical

to the fair administration of the criminal justice system. The monitors also noted in that in 898 of

the non-criminal proceedings observed, litigants did not have legal representation during the

proceedings.

7 The number of times each court was visited and monitored can be found in Appendix II.

8 This number refers to civil and other types of cases observed. In traffic offense cases, the monitors found that

litigants were often unrepresented but did not note the exact number of self-represented defendants.

Court Facilities

In order for any court to provide for the fair administration of justice, the facility that

houses that court must ensure that the dignity of the proceedings is maintained. If the public is to

have confidence in the operations of the court, the facility must meet certain standards.

Modern Courts’ monitors observed the facilities of 25 of the 27 Town and Village Justice

Courts in Dutchess County. As previously noted, these court facilities are funded, operated and

maintained by the local towns and villages.

The monitors reported the following:

• The vast majority (23 of the 25) of court facilities observed were described as

“well-maintained.” However, monitors reported that the Amenia Town and the

Millbrook Village court facilities were not well-maintained. For example, the

monitors who visited the Amenia Town reported that, “The building is very old

and needs many repairs and new fixtures. It is very crowded. It was as clean as it

probably could be but the stains are bad on the fixtures and walls. They

desperately need a new and larger facility,” and that, “[t]he courtroom was

crowded, messy, and noisy. … Amenia needs new facilities.” The monitors who

visited the Millbrook Village court facilities found, “The space was totally

inadequate. No security, poor access to the second floor, no apparent elevator, and

no signs or direction. This court desperately needs other accommodations.”

• 80% (20 of the 25) of court facilities observed did not have “space allocated in

the courthouse for private attorney-client conferencing.” The only five that did

were Clinton, Fishkill, Milan, Poughkeepsie, Union Vale, and Washington Town

courts.

• 80% (20 of 25) of courts facilities observed appeared accessible for disabled

persons. However, monitors reported that Fishkill Village, Millbrook Village,

Pine Plains Town, Tivoli Village, and Wappingers Falls Village court facilities

appeared inaccessible to those with disabilities. For example, monitors who

visited the Tivoli Village court noted that, “The court room is on the second floor,

steep stairs, and no elevator.” Monitors who visited the Millbrook Village court

reported, “You have to go upstairs for court … This place is not handicapped

accessible.”

• None of the court facilities observed had a waiting room outside the courtroom

for litigants and the public.

Security

• 88% (22 of the 25) of court facilities observed did not have a magnetometer at the

entrance of the court. Only Poughkeepsie Town, Wappinger Town, and

Wappingers Falls Village had a magnetometer.

• 56% (14 of 25) of court facilities observed had “sufficient/secure distance in the

courtroom between the parties.” However, monitors reported that Amenia Town,

Beekman Town, Millbrook Village, North East Town, Pleasant Valley,

Rhinebeck Village, Stanford Town, Tivoli Village, Wappingers Falls Village,

Pine Plains Town and Washington Town courts appeared too small or crowded to

ensure a secure distance between parties.

Courtrooms

• 20% (5 of the 25) of the courts observed had courtrooms that were both

inadequate in size for the proceedings and did not have a sufficient number of

seats. These courts were Amenia Town, Beekman Town, East Fishkill Town,

Millbrook Village, and Pleasant Valley Town.

Signage

• None of the courts observed had multi-lingual and/or Braille signage.

Parking

• 24% (6 of 25) of the courts observed had insufficient lighting in their parking

lots. This is significant because many of the Town and Village Justice Court

sessions are held during the evening or at night. These courts were Clinton Town,

Dover Town, Millbrook Village, Rhinebeck Town, Wappinger Town, and

Washington Town. For example, monitors who visited the Washington Town

Court noted that, “Lighting in the parking area was almost non-existent.” One

monitor who visited the Dover Town Court reported, “Outside lighting needs to

be addressed for the parking lot. None was available.”

Additional facilities comments regarding each of the courts observed can be found in

Appendix III.

Recommendations

Maintenance of Court Facilities

Monitors reported that court facilities in Amenia Town and Millbrook Village were not

well-maintained. The Town and Village should assess the conditions of their court facilities and

make the necessary repairs if possible. If not , they should consider relocating, or building a new

facility that provides a well-maintained and accessible facility that allows theses courts to

perform their essential functions efficiently with a safe environment for the litigants and those

who work in these courts.

Attorney/Client Conferencing Space9

Monitors observed that 80% of the court facilities observed did not have space allocated

in the courthouse for attorney-client conferencing in private. In some cases, this deficiency led to

noisy courtrooms because attorneys were forced to meet with their clients in the courtroom

during the proceedings. In addition, such circumstances present the potential for a breech of

attorney-client confidentiality, because information has to be exchanged between attorneys and

their clients in a public courtroom. Each court should allocate space within its facilities for

attorney-client conferencing both to maintain order in the courtroom and to provide for attorney-

client confidentiality.

Accessibility10

Monitors reported that 20% (5 of 25) of courts facilities observed appeared inaccessible

for those with disabilities. Modern Courts urges that Fishkill Village, Millbrook Village, Pine

Plains Town, Tivoli Village, and Wappingers Falls Village take steps to provide reasonable

accommodations and assistance to those who need them and are entitled to them under the

Americans with Disabilities Act.

Security

Monitors reported that the vast majority (88%, or 22 of the 25) of court facilities

observed did not have a magnetometer at the entrance of the court. Given the large volume of

criminal cases heard by Dutchess County Town and Village Justice Courts, including felony

arraignments, those 22 towns and villages without magnetometers or other entrance screening

devices should act quickly to acquire such security devices. It should be noted that Chief Judge

9 In some courts, space was allocated in another town or village building, or the judge’s chambers were used.

10 It should be noted that Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye’s Action Plan for the Justice Courts recommends the

development of a survey and assessment form for Justice Courts in order to identify barriers that limit full

participation in those facilities.

Judith S. Kaye’s Action Plan for the Justice Courts has provided aid to localities for the

acquisition of these security devices.

Courtrooms

Monitors observed that 5 courtrooms were inadequate in size or seating for the

proceedings being held in them. Larger courtrooms and/or nearby easily accessible waiting areas

are needed for the Amenia Town, Beekman Town, East Fishkill Town, Millbrook Village, and

Pleasant Valley Town Justice Courts in order to reduce noise in these courtrooms related to

overcrowded conditions and to ensure that litigants and those in the courtroom can hear the

calendar call and other announcements from court personnel.

Signage

None of the 25 Town and Village Courts observed had multi-lingual signs although they

reported that in many of the courts observed that either an interpreter was used or needed by

litigants, who did not speak or had difficulty understanding English. Multi-lingual signage,

particularly in the foreign language or languages that frequently require interpreters should be

placed in those courts.

Parking

Monitors reported that the lighting in the parking lot was inadequate in 6 of the 25 court

facilities observed. These courts commonly hold court sessions in the evening and in the some

cases the night, which means litigants and other visitors to the courts often must leave the court

in darkly lit or unlit conditions. The lighting of these court facilities’ parking lots should be

improved to better safeguard the litigants, staff, and visitors to these courts.

Courts Operations

Maintenance of Order

Monitors reported that many of the 25 Justice Courts observed were orderly and quiet

during the proceedings observed, enabling the participants in the proceedings to be heard by the

monitors, those litigants awaiting their cases to be called by the judge or other court personnel,

and those family members accompanying litigants. Among those courts, Beekman, Clinton,

Milan, and Pawling Town were specifically cited as being quiet and orderly. For example:

• Quietest court that I have ever been in. Court officer called cases by sequence number

and name and his voice could be heard throughout the court room. (Beekman Town)

• It was a well-run and quiet courtroom. (Clinton Town)

• The court officers had excellent control of courtroom. Judge (Michael Martin) was

easy to hear. (Fishkill Village)

• Noise was not an issue at all even without any court officers. (Milan Town)

• The court room was quiet and orderly during proceedings. (Pawling Town)

• There was no chatter among the lawyers or general courtroom [while Judge Page

presided]. (Red Hook Town)

• The judge (Frank Weber) certainly had control of his court. (Stanford Town)

• There was definite control of the court room. You could hear a pin drop. (Tivoli

Village)

However, the monitors, who made multiple visits to some courts, reported that LaGrange,

Pleasant Valley, and Wappinger Town Justice Courts were noisy and disorderly. For example:

• The courtroom was a three ring circus. There was so much commotion and so much

going on at the same time. (LaGrange Town)

• I don’t think anyone had control of the courtroom. It was a zoo. (Pleasant Valley

Town)

• No attempt by court officer to stop all the chatter in the room. The lawyers were all

having a gab fest. She [the judge] chattered and laughed with private attorneys and

her clerk. (Red Hook Town)

• It was very noisy in the court. Doors to the court were not closed and numerous

people remained outside the courtroom in the adjacent hall. This included one five

year old girl who I could hear from inside the court in the first row. When her

family’s case was called the child ran around the courtroom. A teenager sat 2 seats

away from me in the front row [and] continued to talk to his friend for 1 ½ hours

without ever shutting up. He was never asked to stop talking by anyone. Late in the

session the judge [Heather Kitchen] yelled for quiet in the courtroom but all the court

officers just seemed to process folders [and hand them] to the judge and never

controlled the noise in the courtroom. (Wappinger Town)

In some cases, the noise in the courtroom was attributed to the inadequate facilities in

which some of the courts were housed. For example:

• The door is constantly being banged. The people waiting in the hallway are crowded

together as it is very small. Therefore, it is very noisy.(Amenia Town)

• The courtroom was too noisy. The judge requested silence only twice. Between the

banging of the gate, the noisy door, and sometimes noisy courtroom, it was difficult

to hear. Troopers and deputies who appeared called defendants from front and rear of

the courtroom at the same time as the judge was calling names. (LaGrange Town)

• The judge asked for the door to be closed because of the noise of the police

department next door. (Pine Plains Town)

Monitors also observed that court personnel in some noisy courts did not attempt to

maintain order and quiet.

• This court seemed very casual – noisy [with] no one in control as one would expect.

(Amenia Town)

• The court officer made no attempt to quiet the lawyers or make them turn off their

cell phones. (Hyde Park Town)

• The judge [Paul Caltagirone] exercised no control over the noise which prevailed in

the hallway and the courtroom doors were wide open. (Pleasant Valley Town)

• The courtroom was very noisy as no one tried to quiet all the chatter. (Wappinger

Town)

Recommendation

Monitors reported that several courts observed (LaGrange, Pleasant Valley, and

Wappinger Town Justice Courts) were noisy and disorderly during multiple observations. In

some instances, the noise was attributed to the inadequacy of the size or location of the court

facilities. But in others, monitors observed that the judges and court personnel did not ask for

quiet or otherwise attempt to reduce the noise level in the courtroom. Local officials should

address facilities issues such as courtrooms that are too small or without waiting areas which

contribute to the noise and disorderliness in these courts. In addition, judges and court personnel

should inform those in the courtroom prior to the beginning of court proceedings, and

periodically during the court session that attendees should remain silent during the proceedings.

Caseload and Scheduling

In Dutchess County, as is the case with all Justice Courts in New York State, each town

and village sets its own Justice Court’s hours of operation including the frequency of court

sessions. One court had sessions scheduled as frequently as four times a week (Poughkeepsie

Town), while another court had sessions scheduled as infrequently as once a twice a month

(Tivoli Village). Most of the courts had sessions scheduled at least once a week. Some Town

Courts such as Amenia, Clinton, Dover, Milan, Fishkill, Hyde Park, Pleasant Valley, Stanford,

and Wappingers Fall Village courts had court sessions scheduled several times a week.

Regardless of the frequency that these courts were required to meet, each of the Town and

Village Courts in Dutchess County are allowed only two judges. In fact the Pawling Village, Red

Hook Town and Red Hook Village Justice Courts each had one sitting judge during this project.

Monitors noted that the caseloads of some justice courts were large while other courts

had significantly smaller caseloads on the occasions they were observed. For example, one

monitor observed the Town of Poughkeepsie Court handled 248 cases during one observation –

the largest number of proceedings observed during one court session during this monitoring

project. In a subsequent observation of the Poughkeepsie Town Court, another monitor observed

185 cases.

The monitors made the following comments regarding the caseloads in the Town Court

of Poughkeepsie:

• 185 cases in 3 ¼ hours obviously the judge had to be efficient. Judge Banner was

very professional and in control. This court has a large number of litigants every time

so with the exception of taking so long to get in the courtroom they know how to

move the cases.

• Today, Judge Sullivan had a [relatively] short caseload (58 cases) but dispensed of it

very quickly while not rushing anyone.

In addition, monitors observed busy caseloads in the East Fishkill (172 cases), Pleasant

Valley (108 cases), LaGrange (96 cases), Fishkill (92 cases), Dover (86 cases) and Milan (86

cases) Town courts.

Monitors made the following comments regarding some of the larger caseloads in the

courts observed:

• I was shocked that a court such as Dover would have 86 cases. (Dover Town)

• The 96 cases were handled efficiently in 4 hours time. (LaGrange Town)

Conversely, monitors also observed court sessions in multiple courts during which fewer

than 10 cases were heard. These observations occurred in Millbrook Village (5 cases), Union

Vale Town (5 cases), Pine Plains Town (7 cases), Rhinebeck Village (7 cases), and Washington

Town (8 cases) courts.

Recommendation

Consolidation

Given the extremely small caseloads of the Millbrook Village Justice Court (5 cases) and

the Rhinebeck Village Justice Court (7 cases) observed by the monitors, both villages should

assess the number of cases heard by these courts and should either consider joining with the

Town Justice Courts that cover the same geographic jurisdiction, or dissolving their Justice

Courts if these Village Courts consistently hear small caseloads. The small caseload, observed by

the monitors, of the Union Vale Town Justice Court (5 cases) and Pine Plains Town Justice

Court (7 cases) suggests that these towns should consider conducting a similar assessment and

possible consolidation of their courts with an adjacent town court.

Criminal Cases

As noted previously, the majority of cases observed by court monitors involved criminal

matters. Given the large number of such cases and the concerns expressed about the protection of

the constitutional rights of defendants and the protection of victims in these cases, Modern

Courts’ monitors recorded observations about a number of aspects of criminal cases, including

arraignment proceedings, the appointment of attorneys for indigent defendants, proceedings

involving young offenders, and domestic violence cases.

Arraignments

An arraignment is the court proceeding during which a person, who has been arrested, is

informed of the charges against him or her.11 Arraignments are a critical part of a criminal

proceeding because it is the first time that a defendant appears before a judge. It is absolutely

essential that the judge protect the constitutional rights of the defendant when arraigning a

defendant. In addition, the defendant is informed of the right to counsel and advised that if he or

she cannot afford an attorney one will be assigned for the entire case at the state’s expense. If the

defendant plans to hire an attorney, but has not done so at the time of arraignment, an attorney

can be assigned for the arraignment only. If charged with a felony, the defendant is informed that

within 144 hours of arrest he or she has the right to a preliminary hearing or a grand jury

indictment. In addition, the defendant is given notice of whether any incriminating statements

were made to the police and whether witnesses identified him or her. Finally, the defendant is

asked to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty.

11 N.Y.CPL §1.20 (9) (McKinney 2008) defines arraignment as "the occasion upon which a defendant against whom

an accusatory instrument has been filed appears before the court in which the criminal action is pending for the

purpose of having such court acquire and exercise control over his person with respect to such accusatory instrument

and of setting the course of further proceedings in the action."

Judges in Town and Village Justice Courts regularly arraign defendants who are accused

of crimes within their jurisdictions. And while a criminal defendant usually must be brought to

the local court for arraignment within 24 hours of arrest, many of the Town and Village Justice

Courts in Dutchess County have only one or two “DA” calendars12 during a typical month. As a

result many arraignments are conducted where neither a representative of the District Attorney’s

office nor a defense attorney is present. Modern Courts’ monitors were able to observe DA

calendars, but were not able to observe arraignments which took place when only the defendant,

arresting police officer and judge were present, because such proceedings do not take occur at

regularly scheduled times.

Observations Regarding Arraignments13

During the monitoring project, monitors observed a total of 36 court sessions that

included arraignments in the 25 Town and Village Justice Courts observed in Dutchess County.

• While the judge read the charges to each defendant arraigned in the vast majority (23

of 25) of the Justice Courts observed, monitors reported that the charges sometimes

were not read to each individual defendant during arraignment by one of the judges in

the Amenia Town Justice Court, and both14 of the judges in Red Hook Town Justice

Court.

• In 21 of the 25 Justice Courts observed, the judge “informed each defendant of his

plea options (not guilty or guilty).” But the monitors did not observe each defendant

being told his or her plea options during arraignment by one of the judges in both the

12 A “DA” calendar is a court session during which a Dutchess County Assistant District Attorney (ADA) and

Public Defender are scheduled to appear in that court to prosecute or provide a defense in criminal cases.

13 Modern Courts conducted this court monitoring program to provide a general sense of the operations of the Town

and Village Justice Courts in Dutchess County and to provide recommendations on how to improve the system. It

was not our intent to evaluate or publicly criticize judges. However, Modern Courts will communicate its

observations to the judge observed and to the Supervising Judge for the Justice Courts in the judicial district where

the court is located.

14 One of the judges observed in the Red Hook Town Court is no longer on the bench.

Amenia and Dover Town Justice Courts, both judges in Red Hook Town Justice

Court, and the judge in the Tivoli Village Justice Court.

Monitors reported that many of the judges took their arraignment responsibilities

seriously and afforded the defendants their constitutional rights. For example:

• Judge John C. Garito, Beekman Town Court, “explained rights to and took time with

each defendant” and “did not rush anyone, listened to everyone, explained charges,

and took an interest in the all the cases.”

• Judge Raymond Chase, Wappingers Falls Village, “never failed to take time to

explain charges and rights.” Judge John Kane, Jr., Rhinebeck Town Court, “makes

sure all defendants understand their rights.”

• Judge Frank Weber, Stanford Town Court, “was very patient with lawyers and

defendants. He was meticulous in his explanations.”

• “Prior to calling [individual] defendants to the bench, the judge (Judge Francis G.

Christensen, Milan Town Court) explained all the proceedings that were going to

happen.”

• Judge Paul Banner, Poughkeepsie Town Court, “was very good at explaining how the

court works to all new defendants.”

• “This is a small court with a great judge (Judge John Kane, Jr., Rhinebeck Village

Court). He took his time, never rushed anyone and explained rights to the defendants

very well.”

• “He (Judge Frank Weber, Stanford Town Court) was very patient with lawyers and

defendants. He was meticulous in his explanations.”

Unfortunately, there were some courts15 where the constitutional rights of the defendants

were not adequately protected by the presiding judge. For example:

• In one court, the monitor reported that “the judge only spoke a few times. The ADA

and public defender ran the whole court. … the public defender, explains charges,

arraignments, etc. The judge just sat saying nothing. He looked like a man that didn’t

know what was going on,” and the judge “… didn’t really do anything but sit there.

15 As noted earlier in this report, it was not our intent to evaluate or publicly criticize judges. However, Modern

Courts will communicate its observations to the judge observed and to the Supervising Judge for the Justice Courts

in the judicial district where the court is located.

The public defender and ADA really handled everything, and then the judge okayed

it. The judge is not a lawyer.”

• In another court, the monitor reported that “I never once heard anyone read their

rights.” This monitor was provided a handout given to litigants prior to the

proceedings that informed the litigants of their rights. The litigants were not asked if

they understood this document.

• And in another court, the monitor reported that “The reading of rights was not a

priority.”

While it is to be expected that Town and Village judges would read the charges to each

defendant and inform each defendant of his or her plea options during the DA calendars, when

Assistant District Attorneys and both public defenders and private defense attorneys are present,

it is unclear whether this practice occurs during the many unscheduled arraignments that take

place, when only the defendant, arresting officer and judge are present.

Recommendations

Informing Defendants of their Rights

In those courts where monitors did not observe charges being read to each criminal

defendants, and where judges were not observed informing defendants of the available plea

options (not guilty or guilty), judges must take care to read the charges to all defendants and

inform all defendants of the available plea options.

Recording16 Unscheduled Arraignments

Given that many arraignments of defendants take place at unscheduled times and days

when neither Assistant District Attorneys nor public defenders or private defense attorneys are

present, Modern Courts recommends that judges of Town and Village Justice Courts be provided

with inexpensive tape recorders so that these arraignments can be recorded and reviewed. Such a

16 Although Town and Village Justice Courts are not “courts of record” and are not required to record their

proceedings, recording arraignments when no attorneys are present is wise public policy. It should be noted that the

Unified Court System has begun to provide electronic recording devices to the largest Town and Village Justice

Courts.

practice would ensure that the constitutional rights of every defendant are protected and shield

judges from unsubstantiated accusations of impropriety.

Interpreters

In order for a defendant to understand the charges which are being brought against him or

her it is necessary for the defendant to possess sufficient knowledge of the English language to

understand the meaning of those charges. In 1317 of the 25 justice courts observed, the judge

offered the services of an interpreter if the defendant appeared not to understand English, or was

hearing impaired. The Town and Village Justice Court judges observed seemed aware of this and

acted accordingly. For example:

• One defendant seemed to need an interpreter and a public defender, so Judge Ferris

adjourned the case and gave defendant a copy in Spanish [of] how to get a public

defender and scheduled an interpreter for [the next] session. (Beekman Town)

• The interpreter was ready and waiting for those cases she knew about and stayed for

cases that were new. (East Fishkill Town)

• Two defendants needed an interpreter. It was discovered that one defendant spoke

Portuguese not Spanish and he (Judge John Kane Jr.) was so apologetic to the

defendant. This is a very efficient court. (Rhinebeck Town)

17 Amenia Town, Beekman Town, Dover Town , East Fishkill Town , Fishkill Town, LaGrange Town, Millbrook

Village, Pleasant Valley Town, Poughkeepsie Town, Rhinebeck Town, Union Vale Town, Wappinger Town,

Wappingers Falls Village, and Washington Town.

Appointment of Attorneys for Indigent Defendants

It has long been held that a defendant has the constitutional right to be represented by

counsel under the US Constitution.18 In New York State, the right is recognized under its own

Constitution19, and by statute.20

Locally, Section 200.26 of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts

requires Town and Village Justice Courts to make an initial determination of eligibility for

assigned counsel at arraignment when a defendant is being held without bail or is unable to post

bail. If the court determines that the defendant is eligible for counsel, it must immediately assign

counsel and notify counsel and the local pretrial services agency of the assignment.”21

Defendants are not obligated to make any request for their own representation; the judges are

expected to recognize and determine when the rule applies22.

In Dutchess County, the Office of the Public Defender represents most indigent

defendants.

Monitors observed the following regarding the appointment of assigned counsel:

• In all 25 justice courts observed, the judges “informed each defendant of their right

to an attorney if charged with a criminal offense.” In Rhinebeck Town Justice Court,

one monitor reported, “One defendant didn’t want a lawyer and all three (the judge,

ADA, public defender) talked to him [about his right to an attorney] and he finally

agreed.”

• In all 25 justice courts observed, the judges “adjourned cases so defendants could get

a lawyer.” For example, in the Millbrook Village Justice Court, one monitor reported

that “A defendant was brought in from county jail where he had been held for 2 days

18 Gideon v Wainwright, 372 US 335; Coleman v Alabama, 399 US 1; Powell v Alabama, 287 US 45.

19 NY Const, Art I, § 6.

20 CPL § 170.10, 180.10, 210.15 (McKinney 2007).

21 Spangenberg Report, p.113.

22 22 NYCRR § 200.26.

on $100 bail which was set at arraignment by another town justice. The case was

adjourned to get a public defender [for the defendant].”

• In 7

of the 24 justice courts observed, the judge “appointed an attorney to [a]

defendant at the arraignment.” For example, monitors observed that in Fishkill Town

Justice Court, Judge Francois Cross “made referrals to public defender, to mental

hygiene, and to DMV.” In Hyde Park Town Justice Court, Judge John Kennedy “was

very adamant about some defendants getting lawyers or a Public Defender.”

However, in one Town Justice Court, the judge “refused to appoint a lawyer to

represent a defendant when the defendant asked.”

• In 3 of the 25 Justice Courts observed, the judge “used a questionnaire to determine

eligibility for defendants for an assigned attorney. This practice used by the judges in

the Pleasant Valley, Poughkeepsie, and Washington Town Justice Courts.

• In 13

of the 25 Justice Courts observed, the judge “provided information about

legal services to indigent defendants.” For example, a monitor observed that in

Rhinebeck Town Justice Court, “Judge Kane spent a lot of time making sure each

defendant knew how to get counsel.”

Recommendation

Legal Services Information

Monitors reported that judges in 48% of the courts observed did not provide defendants

with information about obtaining legal services. Every judge should provide each indigent

criminal defendant with information about legal services. Written information about the

23 East Fishkill Town, Fishkill Village, Hyde Park Town, LaGrange Town, Poughkeepsie Town, Wappingers Falls

Village, and Washington Town Justice Courts.

24 Amenia Town, East Fishkill Town, Fishkill Town, Fishkill Village, Hyde Park Town, Millbrook Village, Pawling

Town , Pleasant Valley Town, Poughkeepsie, Town, Rhinebeck Town, Rhinebeck Village, Wappinger Town, and

Washington Town Justice Courts.

availability of legal services for indigent defendants should also be available particularly in cases

in which a public defender might not be available in court during that session.

Juvenile Defendants in the Town and Village Courts

In New York State, young people aged 16 and older accused of criminal acts are charged

as adults and appear as defendants in the Town and Village Justice Courts. Younger teens who

have committed serious crimes also may have their cases heard in the Justice Court rather than in

the Family Court. Certain youths between the ages of 14 and 19, may be treated as a youthful

offender in the local Justice Courts, which generally results in their juvenile record being sealed

and a reduction in the maximum sentence that maybe imposed. Other juvenile defendants may

not be afforded this status, and if convicted will not have their records sealed, which would have

significant repercussions for their futures, including barring them from future employment,

student loans, and even public housing.

The monitors observed many defendants under the age of 18 in the Town and Village

Justice Courts.25

It was not possible to ascertain if all of these defendants were treated as

youthful offenders, as defined by state law, by the court. However, monitors did observe whether

these young defendants were accompanied by a legal guardian and whether they had legal

representation in the often busy local Town and Village Justice Courts with their diverse

caseloads. The monitors’ observations are as follows:

• In more than half (37 of the 64) of the court sessions which were observed, there were

cases involving defendants under the age of 18.

25 Generally, during their observations, the monitors had access to each court’s calendar which listed a date of birth

which is typically how the monitors identified that a defendant was under the age of 18. In some cases, the judge or

the lawyers made reference to the fact that the defendant was under the age of 18 as well.

• In the majority (29 of the 37) of the court sessions involving defendants under the age

of 18, all of the defendants were accompanied by a legal guardian. In the remaining 8

court sessions, some of the defendants were accompanied by a legal guardian (in 3

court sessions) and some were not (in 5 court sessions).

• In a significant number (11 of the 37) of the court sessions, none of the defendants

under the age of 18 had legal representation present during their cases; in 3 of the 37

court sessions, some of the defendants under the age of 18 had legal representation

present. The monitors did not report about the presence of legal representation in 2 of

the court sessions in which defendants under the age of 18 were observed.

Monitors observed that many of the judges appeared to safeguard the privacy of the

juveniles by hearing the case in chambers. For example:

• The judge, ADA, public defender, parent and defendant retired to a private

conference. The case was [eventually] rescheduled. (Millbrook Village)

• The justice was very good about youthful offenders having private hearings. (Hyde

Park Town)

• The judge and lawyers left the courtroom for this case. (Pleasant Valley Town)

• The judge requested that the defendants and his parents go to his chambers.

(Poughkeepsie Town)

Monitors also observed judges explaining the proceedings to juveniles and, in some

cases, to their parents. For example:

• When the judge increased the hours of community service that was recommended by

the ADA for a teenager charged with criminal trespass, [he] explained days and hours

of the community service at the town recycling center. (Beekman Town)

• The judge advised defendant that he must be accompanied by a parent, or a lawyer

[who had] written parental consent [to represent the youth].(Fishkill Town)

• The defendant was advised that he must have a parent or legal guardian, or have the

parent or legal guardian sign that he may represent himself, or have counsel. (Pleasant

Valley Town)

• The justice was very good at explaining options especially to the student applying for

college aid. (Poughkeepsie Town)

• He [the judge] was very good at telling the mother about getting advice from a lawyer

and explaining everything to her. (Union Vale Town)

• The justice was very careful to make sure that the defendants understood what was

happening. He gave the mother all the time that she needed to talk and ask questions.

(Wappingers Fall Village)

• The judge complimented the young man… [who had] finished his community service

and his father and explained to them about getting his fingerprints cleared.

(Washington Town)

Recommendation

Monitors overwhelming reported that local Town and Village judges appeared to try to

safeguard the privacy of young defendants, and explained court procedures to them, and in some

cases, to their parents. However, Modern Courts recommends that a fact sheet or other resource

which provides information for youths about services and programs available to them, the

sealing of juvenile records, and the future consequences resulting from a criminal conviction be

made available to young defendants. This is especially important considering that these young

defendants’ cases are being heard in busy courts which handle an array of cases, unlike the

Family Court where the proceedings are focused on the children.

Domestic Violence Cases

Domestic Violence (DV) cases present themselves through a variety of different criminal

charges in the Town and Village Justice Courts including harassment, assault, and stalking.

Often charges such as burglary, obstruction of justice, and endangering the welfare of a child

may involve domestic violence. Many charges result in the issuance of an “order of protection”

(OP), which is a legal document issued by a judge ordering someone to follow specific

conditions of behavior. Initially these orders may be temporary, until all the facts have been

gathered and the case is heard in Town or Village Justice Court on a later date. There may be

modifications throughout the duration of a case. After a case has been heard and it has been

decided that a crime has been committed a final order may be issued.

The monitors observed 51 cases involving domestic violence during this monitoring

project.

An order for protection (OP) was issued in 39 of the 51 DV Cases observed. In the

majority (31) of those cases (39) where an OP was issued, the monitor observed that the judge

“adequately explained the charges to each defendant,” and in 24 of those cases the judge

“explain[ed] the consequences for violation of an order for protection.”

In addition, in 20 of the 39 cases in which an OP was issued, the monitor observed that

the judge “ask[ed] each party if they understood the terms of the order for protection.” For

example, monitors observed that in the East Fishkill Town Court, “All (domestic violence cases)

were handled well by the justice. He took time and explained orders of protection very clearly to

everyone involved. He made it very clear what would happen if they were violated.” And in the

Red Hook Town Court, “The justice (Judge Roland Page) was very clear in explaining the order

of protection,” and in the Rhinebeck Town Court, “He (Judge John Kane Jr.) was so very clear

about the terms of the order of protection.”

It is of concern that in 8 of the cases where an OP was issued monitors did not observe

the judge “adequately explained the charges to each defendant,” and in 15 of those cases, the

judge did not “explain[ed] the consequences for violation of an order for protection.” Further, in

19 cases in which an OP was issued, the monitor did not observe if the judge “ask[ed] each party

if they understood the terms of the order for protection.” Such explanations are critical to ensure

that orders of protection are followed.

It should be noted that in 3 of the 39 cases in which an OP was issued, the judge asked

the defendant whether he or she owned any firearms. This seems like an appropriate inquiry and

one that would better facilitate providing protection to the victim who secures an order of

protection.

In addition to the above findings, the monitors observed the following:

• An existing order of protection was modified in 3 of the 51 DV cases observed

• In 1 of 51 DV cases observed a defendant was sanctioned for violation of an order of

protection

• An adjournment occurred in 2 of the 51 DV cases observed (one case was adjourned

because the defendant did not appear; the other was adjourned awaiting a visitation

schedule being established in the Family Court)

• 1 defendant in 51 DV cases observed was held in custody without bail

• 2 defendants had bail set in 51 DV cases observed (In both cases, bail was set at

$50,000.)

The monitors made the following additional comments regarding the handling of

domestic violence case in the Town and Village Justice Courts:

• All (domestic violence proceedings) were rescheduled to another date. (Poughkeepsie

Town)

• This court has no patience for domestic violence. They take it very seriously.

(Wappingers Falls Village)

• Judge Shequine was very sensitive to these [domestic violence] cases. One Order of

Protection was amended so a family could have Thanksgiving dinner together to the

objections of the ADA. The change was asked for by all parties in the family.

(Washington Town)

Recommendations

Orders of Protection

In almost 40% (15 of the 39) of the domestic violence cases in which an order of

protection was issued, the judge did not explain the consequences for violation of the order for

protection. Each judge must ensure that when an order of protection is issued the defendant is

fully aware of the consequences for violating the order.

Determining Possession of Firearms in Domestic Violence cases

Monitors observed that the judge asked the defendant whether he or she owned a firearm

in only 3 of the 39 domestic violence cases observed. Pursuant to New York State and federal

law, a person subject to an order of protection, under certain circumstances, forfeits the right to

legally possess a firearm. In order to assess whether a firearm should be removed from the

possession of a defendant who is subject to an order of protection, the judge should determine

whether the defendant is in possession of a firearm at the initial appearance or subsequent court

dates.

Traffic Cases

Monitors observed 1044 cases in the Town and Village Justice Courts that involved

alleged violations of the Vehicle and Traffic law. County Law § 700 requires district attorneys

to prosecute all offenses including traffic infractions. Under this law, the negotiation of traffic

ticket plea bargains is the responsibility of the county’s district attorney. However, in many

counties, including Dutchess County, the district attorney historically has relied upon state

troopers to negotiate traffic ticket plea bargains on behalf of the district attorney. Effective

September 1, 2006, the New York State Troopers introduced a policy which prohibited

individual troopers from negotiating plea bargains in Justice Courts. Town and Village judges

cannot negotiate pleas themselves resulting in many traffic infraction cases being dismissed.

Fines resulting from violation of Vehicle and Traffic laws are a significant source of

revenue for the towns and villages and fund the operations of the Town and Village Justice

Courts. The monitors observed the imposition of many fines and other fees in the large number

of traffic cases observed during this project that demonstrating the importance that some courts

placed on fines being paid. For example:

• The judge [Norman Moore] seemed more concerned about fines being paid...He said

at least five times – “I want my money.” (Amenia Town )

• When sentences were imposed and the defendant was not able to pay the fine and

surcharge, the judge [R.Wren Abrams] adjourned the case for 30 to 60 days. The

judge stated that this procedure allowed the Dover court to collect a [higher] number

of fines. (Dover Town)

• He [Judge Howard Clark] was very strict about payments of fines. He told defendants

that if they missed a payment all charges against them would be brought up again and

any reductions would be cancelled. (Tivoli Village)

Monitors also observed the dismissal of many traffic cases in many local courts as a

result of the state troopers no longer appearing to negotiate pleas. For example:

• Numerous traffic violations were dismissed because the State Police no longer can

plea bargain traffic tickets so they just don’t show up then [the traffic tickets] get

dismissed by the judge. (LaGrange Town)

• The judge dismissed one speeding ticket as the police officer failed to appear.

(Pawling Town)

One monitor reported that the traffic cases were adjourned for a later date if the state

trooper did not appear.

• All that got a ticket from the State Police were put off until Stanford decides if they

are going to hire a prosecutor [for traffic tickets]. (Stanford Town)

Recommendation

Due to limited resources and staffing, the county DA has historically relied on New York

State Troopers to negotiate pleas bargain in traffic cases on behalf of the DA. The recent policy

change by the state troopers which prohibits individual troopers from negotiating pleas in the

local Justice Courts has led to dismissals of many cases or repeated adjournments of traffic cases.

This results in a potential loss of revenue for the town and villages that rely on the fines to

operate the Justice Courts and fund other essential operations. In order to reduce the need for

repeated trips to the courts by those charged with traffic infractions and the strain that is placed

on the local Justice Courts and their resources, each town and village should institute a policy,

such as having a town or village attorney, or another local law enforcement officer act on behalf

of the district attorney to resolve this issue.

Civil Cases

Landlord-Tenant Cases

Relatively few civil cases were observed by Modern Courts’ monitors during this project,

but monitors did make some observations about landlord-tenant cases.

Landlord-tenant cases are heard in the Town or Village Justice Court where the property

is located. The cases most commonly heard in the Town and Village Justice Courts are non-

payment cases, in which the landlord claims that the tenant owes rent and seeks to collect

overdue rent from a tenant, or holdover cases, where the landlord seeks to evict a tenant for

reasons other than non-payment of rent.

Monitors observed only 1626 landlord-tenant cases during this monitoring project. Almost

all of the monitor’s observations involved adjournments.

• 10 of the landlord-tenant cases observed were adjourned to a later date

• Half (8) of the landlord-tenants cases observed were adjourned to a later date due to

the failure to appear by either the landlord or the tenant

• 1 of the landlord-tenant cases was adjourned because the landlord was awaiting

needed paperwork. The monitor observed in the Union Vale Town Court that, “There

was only 1 housing case and the judge did not receive [in the mail] the papers he

needed. He adjourned the case. No tenant showed up as [he or she] have left the

state.”

• 1 of the landlord-tenant cases was adjourned because the tenant requested time to

prepare for a trial. The monitor observed in the Poughkeepsie Town Court that, “In

one housing case, the owner was a no show and sent his daughter. She clearly needed

26 These cases were observed in Fishkill Town (6), LaGrange Town (4), Poughkeepsie Town (5) and Union Vale

Town (1) courts.

an interpreter. It took a while for Judge Sullivan to sort out the case and it was

adjourned.”

IV. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Court Facilities

Better Maintenance or Upgrading of Court Facilities

Monitors reported that court facilities in Amenia Town and Millbrook Village were not

well-maintained. The Town and Village should assess the conditions of their court facilities and

make the necessary repairs if possible. If not , they should consider relocating, or building a new

facility that provides a well-maintained and accessible facility that allows theses courts to

perform their essential functions efficiently with a safe environment for the litigants and those

who work in these courts.

Allocating Attorney/Client Conferencing Space27

Monitors observed that 80% of the court facilities observed did not have space allocated

in the courthouse for attorney-client conferencing in private. In some cases, this deficiency led to

noisy courtrooms because attorneys were forced to meet with their clients in the courtroom

during the proceedings. In addition, such circumstances present the potential for a breech of

attorney-client confidentiality, because information has to be exchanged between attorneys and

their clients in a public courtroom. Each court should allocate space within its facilities for

attorney-client conferencing both to maintain order in the courtroom and to provide for attorney-

client confidentiality.

Ensuring Accessibility of Court Facilities28

Monitors reported that 20% (5 of 25) of courts facilities observed appeared inaccessible

for those with disabilities. Modern Courts urges that Fishkill Village, Millbrook Village, Pine

Plains Town, Tivoli Village, and Wappingers Falls Village take steps to provide reasonable

27 In some courts, space was allocated in another town or village building, or the judge’s chambers were used.

28 It should be noted that Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye’s Action Plan for the Justice Courts recommends the

development of a survey and assessment form for Justice Courts in order to identify barriers that limit full

participation in those facilities.

accommodations and assistance to those who need them and are entitled to them under the

Americans with Disabilities Act.

Providing Adequate Security

Monitors reported that the vast majority (88%, or 22 of the 25) of court facilities

observed did not have a magnetometer at the entrance of the court. Given the large volume of

criminal cases heard by Dutchess County Town and Village Justice Courts, including felony

arraignments, those 22 towns and villages without magnetometers or other entrance screening

devices should act quickly to acquire such security devices. It should be noted that Chief Judge

Judith S. Kaye’s Action Plan for the Justice Courts has provided aid to localities for the

acquisition of these security devices.

Larger Courtrooms

Monitors observed that 5 courtrooms were inadequate in size or seating for the

proceedings being held in them. Larger courtrooms and/or nearby easily accessible waiting areas

are needed for the Amenia Town, Beekman Town, East Fishkill Town, Millbrook Village, and

Pleasant Valley Town Justice Courts in order to reduce noise in these courtrooms related to

overcrowded conditions and to ensure that litigants and those in the courtroom can hear the

calendar call and other announcements from court personnel.

Providing Multi-Lingual Signage

None of the 25 Town and Village Courts observed had multi-lingual signs although they

reported that in many of the courts observed that either an interpreter was used or needed by

litigants, who did not speak or had difficulty understanding English. Multi-lingual signage,

particularly in the foreign language or languages that frequently require interpreters should be

placed in those courts.

Better Lighting of Parking Areas

Monitors reported that the lighting in the parking lot was inadequate that in 6 of the 25

court facilities observed. These courts commonly hold court sessions in the evening and in the

some cases the night, which means litigants and other visitors to the courts often must leave the

court in darkly lit or unlit conditions. The lighting of these court facilities’ parking lots should be

improved to better safeguard the litigants, staff, and visitors to these courts.

Court Operations

Maintenance of Order in the Courtroom