New York Senate Bill S08236

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/27/25
• Refer: 5/27/25

Caption

Extends the chief administrator of the courts' authority to allow referees to determine certain applications to a family court for an order of protection.

Summary

This bill extends the sunset date for a provision of the Judiciary Law that allows the chief administrator of the courts to authorize referees to determine certain applications for orders of protection while Family Court is in session. Under current law, that authority was set to expire on September 1, 2025; the bill changes the expiration date to September 1, 2027. The measure does not create a new program or expand the underlying authority beyond the existing framework; it simply keeps the current process in place for two additional years. In practical terms, the bill preserves an existing court administration tool used in Family Court matters involving orders of protection. By extending the expiration date, it maintains the ability of referees to handle eligible applications during court hours, which may help with case processing and judicial workload management. The bill amends chapter 363 of the laws of 2010, as previously extended by chapter 323 of the laws of 2023, and leaves the rest of the statutory scheme unchanged.

Impact

The bill amends the sunset clause in chapter 363 of the laws of 2010, specifically the provision codified in Judiciary Law section 212(2)(n), to extend its repeal date from September 1, 2025 to September 1, 2027. Its legal effect is limited to continuing the chief administrator’s authority to permit referees to determine certain applications for orders of protection in Family Court during court hours. The bill affects court administration, Family Court operations, litigants seeking orders of protection, and the referees and judges who process these matters, but it does not alter the substantive standards for obtaining an order of protection.

Sentiment

The available context suggests a generally neutral-to-supportive sentiment, consistent with a routine extension of an existing court authority. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes indicating opposition or controversy, and the bill’s narrow scope suggests it is intended as a maintenance measure rather than a policy change. The absence of recorded dissent or debate points to likely procedural support focused on continuity in Family Court operations.

Contention

No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. If any concerns were raised, they would likely relate to the use of referees in deciding order-of-protection applications, including questions about judicial oversight, due process, or the appropriateness of delegating these matters during Family Court hours. However, the bill text itself is limited to extending an existing sunset date, and the context provided does not identify any named opponents or disputed provisions.