NY Courts Ready as Second Phase of 'Raise the Age' Law Takes Effect, Officials Say
State officials in New York said Tuesday that they're ready for the change, which is expected to shift a significant number of children from the adult system to an alternative process.
October 01, 2019 at 12:27 PM
7 minute read
New York state will no longer treat children as adults in the state's criminal justice system, as of Tuesday morning, after the second phase of the so-called Raise the Age law took effect, bringing 16- and 17-year-olds out of adult court proceedings and detention facilities.
State officials in New York said Tuesday that they're ready for the change, which is expected to shift a significant number of children from the adult system to an alternative process.
The first phase of the law, which took effect last October, removed 16-year-olds from the adult criminal justice system and created new facilities and court procedures for those children. The second phase, starting Tuesday, will have the same effect for 17-year-olds.
Deputy Administrative Judge Edwina Mendelson, who leads the Office for Justice Initiatives in the Office of Court Administration, said the state's courts are ready for the change.
"We've been looking forward to this implementation process for a long time," Mendelson said. "We put the structure in place to prepare for the 16-year-olds under Raise the Age. We believe we have a very solid structure in place, and we're ready for the 17-year-olds."
Mendelson said state court officials expect there to be more 17-year-old defendants than there were 16-year-olds last year, but that court officials have prepared for the influx.
The law created a new, alternative system for adjudicating children accused of a crime, rather than having them go through the regular, adult criminal court. Instead, those cases are first assigned to a special youth part of the criminal court, where family court judges preside exclusively over proceedings.
The law also allows for those cases to be transferred to family court, rather than remain in criminal court. Mendelson said that's been the result for most cases so far.
"The overwhelming majority of felony cases that begin in the Youth Part are being addressed in the family justice system, and that's been consistent," Mendelson said.
During the initial six months of the first phase of the law, from October 2018 through the end of March, 82% of cases were removed to family court or probation. That's according to a report issued in August by the state's Raise the Age Task Force, which oversees the law's implementation.
Data isn't available for the full year of the first phase, but state officials, including Mendelson, said the same was true for the latter six months.
With more defendants appearing in family court, rather than criminal court, members of the state Legislature have questioned whether the state's courts could use more judges in the family court system to accommodate the shift.
During a hearing on the state budget last year, Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks told lawmakers that, as of January, they had been able to absorb the 16-year-olds into the family court system with the resources already available, including the number of judges.
Mendelson said she doesn't foresee a different outcome during the second phase, but that they're going to monitor the implementation to see if that changes.
"We have decided to watch very carefully as those cases come in and change resources as needed," Mendelson said.
Part of that is shifting resources where they're available, she said. The law requires that family court judges preside over cases involving children defendants, whether they're in criminal court or family court.
To prepare for a situation where a judge of the family court may not be available, the state court system also has the option to train state Supreme Court Justices to preside over the cases and designate them as acting Family Court Justices, according to Mendelson.
"We are making sure we have sufficient judges available and trained and ready to go as necessary, but there is the ability, and we believe the continued ability with the 17-year-olds, to absorb the volume with the jurists that we have available to us," Mendelson said.
The state Legislature also made changes to the law this year designed to streamline court operations and benefit children accused of a crime.
Children who previously had to wait for their cases to be transferred to family court, because the youth part of criminal court wasn't in session, can now skip that step. As long as there's an accessible magistrate, and the prosecutor consents, a proceeding can avoid the criminal court and be sent straight to the family justice system. That's already in effect.
Legislation was also approved this year, Mendelson said, to create more opportunities for cases to go to family youth justice system diversion as an alternative to a court filing. That takes effect in December.
When children do appear in the youth part of criminal court, the law requires that they be kept separate from adult offenders. In some cases, that's presented challenges, but Mendelson said each court is aware of the requirement and that they'll be keeping an eye out for any problems.
"Everybody is paying close attention and really working together to try to resolve any areas where facilities may be a problem, and we've been working those issues of concern out," Mendelson said.
Outside the court system, officials said the state is similarly ready for the second phase of Raise the Age, which also requires that children be housed in separate facilities from adults.
That includes when a child is sentenced to be incarcerated or is detained before their trial. Children are now housed in secure detention facilities around the state, instead of adult jails, when they're incarcerated before trial or are sentenced to a year or less in detention.
When a child receives a sentence longer than a year, they will now be sent to one of two facilities upstate that have been adapted by the state Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to accommodate those offenders.
"By fully implementing the second phase of Raise the Age, 16-year-old and now 17-year-old youth are required to receive the evidence-based services and treatment they need to prevent them from re-offending and to prepare those returning to the community to be successful and productive citizens," said Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
The Raise the Age law also allows 16- and 17-year olds to have their records sealed 10 years after a conviction, as long as they're not convicted of a crime during that time. Over the past two years, more than 1,000 individuals have taken advantage of that portion of the law, the state said.
READ MORE:
Teen Defendants in Central NY County Were Denied Right to Consult With Lawyers, US Judge Rules
Lawmaker Proposes Bill to Expand Protections in NY's 'Raise the Age' Law
Implementing 'Raise the Age' Legislation
Pro Bono Foster Care State Mentoring Program Set to Expand This Year in NY
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFederal Judge Pauses Trump Funding Freeze as Democratic AGs Plan Suit
4 minute readRelaxing Penalties on Discovery Noncompliance Allows Criminal Cases to Get Decided on Merit
5 minute readBipartisan Lawmakers to Hochul Urge Greater Student Loan Forgiveness for Public-Interest Lawyers
Trending Stories
- 1Exits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
- 2Etsy App Infringes on Storage, Retrieval Patents, New Suit Claims
- 3The Secret Prior Art Problem Rears Its Ugly Head
- 4Four Things to Know About Florida’s New Law to Protect Minors Online
- 5US Supreme Court Considers Further Narrowing of Federal Fraud Statutes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250