Diverging from the other three appellate departments in the state, the First Department enforced a New York State Equal Access to Justice Act provision against the chief administrative judge for the New York City Family Court in a matter regarding child support payments.
In making its decision in the matter between the plaintiff Nannan Liu and Chief Administrative Judge Jeanette Ruiz, the three-judge appellate panel determined that, following the Family Court Act 439(e), courts must issue a ruling on an objection to a support award within 15 days. While the chief administrative judge argued that the statute doesn't apply as it's not directed at court administrative tasks such as assigning a judge, the court disagreed.
"To adopt the chief administrative judge's argument would leave a gaping hole in the statutory framework that would defeat the implicit goal of promoting speedy resolution of support matters," Tuesday's opinion said.
Further, the First Department ruled that an indigent plaintiff who sued the state did not need to obtain a court order for relief to get attorney fees as a prevailing party in the litigation, but rather only required the lawsuit to be the catalyst for the desired result — in this case, the expeditious resolution of a child support case.
New York appellate courts are split on the "catalyst theory," an issue that reached the state's highest court in 2013. According to Rene Kathawala, counsel for Liu, a federal equal justice statute for many years used the catalyst theory prior to the state legislation passing the New York State Equal Access to Justice Act. However, since then, other appellate departments have rejected it. In a Court of Appeals opinion, the court explicitly declined to decide whether the catalyst theory was available under the state law.
"The public policy rationale of the Equal Access to Justice Act in New York would be defeated if you couldn't get attorney fees," Kathawala told Law360 on Friday, specifying the lack of incentive for private practitioners to pursue such cases in lieu of guaranteed payment.
The underlying action concerned delays in a father's — Stephen Langone — ordered monthly child support payments and retroactive lump-sum award to the mother. A petition was filed in December 2012 regarding the lack of payments and wasn't decided until November 2019. After a back-and-forth between the trial and appellate courts, Liu filed a child support violation petition in February 2020 seeking to enforce arrears against the father.
In October 2020, the Family Court denied the petition, with Liu following up with an objection the following month. However, a Family Court judge was not assigned, despite the requirement to issue a ruling on the objection in no more than 15 days. After filing a petition against Judge Jeanette Ruiz to assign a judge to rule on the objection, one was chosen in January, issuing Liu a favorable decision that the father violated the 2012 support order. However, the state cross-moved to dismiss the proceeding, partially because it argued the chief administrative judge has discretion to manage the Family Court's docket however she sees fit.
Regarding the ruling, Kathawala said it "didn't frankly shock" him, but that he was "gratified" when dealing with the First Department panel.
"I think it's apparent to anybody who steps foot in the family court that there are serious structural issues that ultimately prevent litigants from getting a fair shake," he said.
It's become an even bigger problem during the COVID-19 pandemic, as the chief administrative judge pointed to former Gov. Andrew Cuomo's executive order as a reason for the suspension in decision. The First Department denied the argument, however, saying that the case had already commenced and that "support orders" constitute "essential matters" that could proceed.
Kathawala noted that, the same day his order showing cause asking the Supreme Court to assign a judge to decide his objection was signed, a judge was chosen and finished their work in under 15 days.
"This notion that they were trying to argue, 'Oh, the pandemic couldn't allow for the processing of these cases in this fashion in this quick timeframe,' was belied by their own judge who did a great job when they were assigned deciding the objections within the time frame that was allocated," he said.
Kathawala added that he wouldn't be shocked if the decision was appealed to the high court, and would be a natural fit given the split between departments, but that the time-limit law under 439(e) is so clear-cut that it doesn't necessitate debate.
"The decision speaks to all of these issues that I've been working on for literally more than a decade in a way that was very rewarding," he added.
The New York Attorney General's Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Justices Angela M. Mazzarelli, Sallie Manzanet-Daniels and Lizbeth González sat on the panel for the First Department.
Nannan Liu was represented by Rene Kathawala of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.
Jeanette Ruiz and Stephen Langone were represented by Grace X. Zhou and Steven C. Wu of the New York State Office of the Attorney General.
The case is Nannan Liu vs. Jeanette Ruiz et al., case number 2021-00415, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department.
--Editing by Ellen Johnson.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
