Citation Numbers: 122 Misc. 2d 925
Judges: Leviss
Filed Date: 2/7/1984
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 2/5/2022
OPINION OF THE COURT
This is a CPLR article 78 proceeding brought to prohibit the Honorable Edith Miller, the Administrative Judge of the Family Court of the State of New York in the City of New York, from establishing the city-wide Foster Care Term, Part 3.
The New York City Commissioner of Social Services, whose office is in New York County, receives the custody of destitute and dependent children, either through voluntary placements (see Social Services Law, § 384-a) or through Family Court order (see Family Ct Act, § 1055). The commissioner contracts with private agencies, such as the petitioner, for the care of these children, and the private agencies are responsible for placing the children in foster homes or elsewhere. The commissioner remains the lawful custodian of the children despite the placements.
A contested section 384-b proceeding, which may require the attendance of numerous attorneys and numerous witnesses, can be time consuming. Because there are several other types of Family Court proceedings which have statutory preferences, section 384-b proceedings were subject to frequent interruptions. Attorneys, witnesses, and the court itself, were inconvenienced by frequent adjournments. In January, 1983, a city-wide Trial Part for termination of parental rights was established in New York County to dispose of only contested section 384-b proceedings.
On July 27, 1983, the petitioner brought a section 384-b proceeding in Queens County Family Court, and the parties subsequently appeared before the Honorable Pearl B. Corrado. When the parents stated that they intended to contest the proceeding, the court transferred the case to New York County. The petitioner is involved with several other cases which are subject to transfer to the new citywide Trial Part. The petitioner opposes the transfer of the proceedings on the ground that the Administrative Judge of the Family Court had no legal authority to promulgate a directive requiring a change in venue to New York County.
Thus, the issue presented is whether the section 384-b proceedings brought by petitioner might also have been originated in New York County.
The term “authorized agency” includes within its scope “[a]ny court or any public welfare official of this state authorized by law to place out or to board out children.” (Social Services Law, § 371, subd 10, par [b].) The New York City Commissioner of Social Services is a “public welfare official” with statutory authority to place out or to board out children. (Social Services Law, § 398, subd 6, par [g]); NY City Charter, §§ 601, 603.) It follows that the New York City Commissioner of Social Services is an “authorized agency” within the meaning of the venue provision applicable to proceedings to terminate parental rights. (Social Services Law, § 384-b, subd 3, par [c].) It may also be seen that the proceedings brought by the petitioner “might have been originated” in New York County where the commissioner has his office. When the petitioner brings a section 384-b proceeding, two “authorized agencies” are involved, itself and the commissioner. The petitioner is obligated by contract to name the commissioner as a party to a section 384-b proceeding, and the object of the proceeding is an order awarding custody to both itself and the commissioner and empowering either authorized
This article 78 proceeding is without merit even on the assumption that the petitioner could not have initially brought its cases in New York County. The usual rules of venue may often indicate a county which is inappropriate for the convenience of those concerned and for the administration of justice. (See 2 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 510.10.) CPLR 510 (subd 3) permits a court to change venue upon consideration of those factors, and venue may be changed to a county excluded by the other rules of venue. The Legislature has thus recognized that mandatory venue provisions should not operate to divest a court of the discretion it needs to promote the efficient administration of justice. The directive of Madame Justice Miller which established the new city-wide Trial Part is a matter well within that discretion, and its exercise should not be disturbed by this proceeding. .
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.