Provides counsel appointed in the supreme court or surrogate's court for certain family matters shall be compensated in the same manner as law guardians in the family court of this state.
Summary
This bill amends the Judiciary Law to change how court-appointed counsel are paid in certain family-related cases heard in Supreme Court or Surrogate’s Court. Specifically, when those courts appoint counsel in a matter that could have been brought in Family Court, and where the Family Court would have been authorized to appoint an attorney for the child, the appointed counsel would be compensated under the same fee and expense rules that apply to law guardians in Family Court.
The measure is aimed at creating parity in compensation across courts for similar family matters. It replaces the current reference to compensation under Judiciary Law section 35 with a requirement that these attorneys receive the same amounts of compensation, expenses, and disbursements established by Family Court Act section 245. The bill would take effect immediately and apply to pending applications or proceedings on or after its effective date.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would amend Judiciary Law section 35 to align compensation for appointed counsel in Supreme Court and Surrogate’s Court family matters with the compensation structure used in Family Court. This would affect court-appointed attorneys, attorneys for the child, and the state or local entities responsible for paying these fees and expenses, potentially increasing or standardizing payments depending on the existing rate differences between the statutes. It would also apply retroactively to pending matters as of the effective date, ensuring immediate coverage for ongoing cases.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text and caption, the proposal appears to be a technical fairness and parity measure intended to standardize compensation for appointed counsel across courts handling similar family law matters. The absence of recorded votes or discussion means the overall sentiment cannot be measured from the available record.
Contention
The main policy issue likely concerns the cost and funding implications of paying appointed counsel in Supreme Court and Surrogate’s Court at Family Court-equivalent rates. Supporters would likely emphasize equal treatment for attorneys handling comparable family cases and consistency across court systems, while potential opponents or fiscal stakeholders may focus on increased public expense or the need to preserve existing Judiciary Law compensation structures. Because no transcript is available, specific objections or sponsors’ responses cannot be identified from the record provided.
Same As
Provides counsel appointed in the supreme court or surrogate's court for certain family matters shall be compensated in the same manner as law guardians in the family court of this state.
Provides counsel appointed in the supreme court or surrogate's court for certain family matters shall be compensated in the same manner as law guardians in the family court of this state.