Manhattan Judge Deals Setback to Child Support Class Action Advanced by Orrick
Justice Shlomo Hagler said he understood that child support is an urgent matter for the custodial parents and especially for their children, but he said there's debate over whether the 90-day timeline laid out in the family court rule is meant literally.
January 09, 2020 at 05:48 PM
3 minute read
A Manhattan Supreme Court justice on Thursday ruled that New York's family court support magistrates have discretion over the timelines of child support cases, dealing a major blow to a proposed class action lawsuit brought by Rene Kathawala, lead pro bono counsel at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe.
Kathawala sued state court system leaders, including Court of Appeals Chief Judge Janet DiFiore and Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks, in 2017 on behalf of several custodial parents, mostly low-income mothers, who waited months or even years for the court to enforce final child support orders against their children's noncustodial parents.
A 2001 family court rule set a 90-day deadline for judges to resolve the enforcement cases, and the family court magistrates should follow that deadline, Kathawala said in oral arguments Thursday morning.
Justice Shlomo Hagler asked whether there are ever circumstances, such as illness affecting the custodial parent, that could delay that timeline. Kathawala acknowledged that certain circumstances could cause delays but insisted they should not be common or lengthy.
"We're not talking about 97 days, 101 days," Kathawala said. "We're talking about months, we're talking about years. You don't get to an 8-year-old case unless that 7-day window is being violated in terms of weeks, months and even years."
Lawyers representing the state court system argued that delays are often not the fault of judicial officers, noting that anyone else involved in a case is able to cause a delay. Custodial parents sometimes change their minds about wanting enforcement, too, the lawyers said.
Kathawala also argued that the state had submitted false data to Hagler about the functioning of the family courts, which the government attorneys denied.
Hagler said he understood that child support is an urgent matter for the custodial parents and especially for their children, but he said there's debate over whether the 90-day timeline laid out in the family court rule is meant literally.
Kathawala said he was deeply disappointed by Hagler's bench ruling and plans to appeal.
A spokesman for the state court system released a brief statement praising the ruling Thursday afternoon.
"We are pleased that the Justice Hagler agreed with our position and saw this lawsuit for what it was," the statement said.
READ MORE:
Rights of Children in NY Family Courts Set for Legislative Public Hearing
Women in New York Now Allowed to Postpone Jury Duty While Breastfeeding
Filing Interlocutory Appeals in Child Custody Cases
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 AllNew York Court of Appeals Blocks Trump Attempt to Stay Friday Sentencing
Balancing Judicial Authority: Understanding Sanctions, Severance, and Interferences
8 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Many LA County Law Firms Remain Open, Mobilize to Support Affected Employees Amid Historic Firestorm
- 2Stevens & Lee Names New Delaware Shareholder
- 3U.S. Supreme Court Denies Trump Effort to Halt Sentencing
- 4From CLO to President: Kevin Boon Takes the Helm at Mysten Labs
- 5How Law Schools Fared on California's July 2024 Bar Exam
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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