 |
| Charles Montorio-Archer |
In venues around the country, court systems are struggling to keep up with the pace of litigation.
As of late September, there was a backlog of 3.75 million cases in immigration court.[1]
In Wisconsin, in the Brown County Circuit Court, indigent defendants who assert ongoing delays in counsel assignments filed a renewed motion for class certification this January in Thomas v. Evers against the state's public defender office. And the state court system has a backlog of over 12,000 cases.[2]
In Bexar County, Texas, more than 3,000 domestic violence misdemeanor cases reportedly remained unfiled by the district attorney's office in September.[3]
And the New York City Civil Court system is under strain, exacerbated by pandemic-era delays and judicial staffing shortages.[4] Reports from the New York State Office of Court Administration have highlighted ongoing backlogs in the civil docket.[5]
As court administrators, lawmakers and advocates debate how best to expand access to justice and reduce congestion, the New York City Small Claims Court has emerged as a critical venue for pro se litigants seeking civil justice in cases involving issues like unpaid loans, unreturned security deposits, property damage or breach-of-service agreements.
These are not minor issues to the litigants involved. Yet the very design that makes the small claims court accessible — its informality and speed — also exposes systemic weaknesses.
Three practical reforms would help strengthen fairness, consistency and access within this important but overlooked courtroom.
1. Standardize arbitrator training and guidance.
All arbitrators receive training through the Small Claims Arbitrators Association Inc., which provides a foundation in procedure, ethics and bias awareness, and continues to evolve in response to the changing needs of the court and litigants.
Building on this base, the court could further strengthen professional development by deepening its focus in several core areas of practice — particularly courtroom management, engagement with self-represented litigants and continued peer learning across the arbitration pool.
Additional applied training opportunities could further align practice across the system. This could include, for example, advanced workshops that:
- Reinforce courtroom management and case flow techniques, including approaches for maintaining order; setting clear expectations; and ensuring hearings remain fair, efficient and accessible;
- Expand on strategies for working with self-represented litigants, such as ways to communicate procedural requirements and evidentiary principles clearly without compromising neutrality; and
- Support peer-to-peer learning and reflection, such as periodic refresher sessions and the sharing of anonymized case summaries to promote consistency and continual improvement.
These enhancements would complement the SCAA's existing curriculum and reflect the shared goal of maintaining fairness, dignity and professionalism throughout the small claims court.[6]
2. Equip litigants to better prepare their cases.
According to 2024 federal court data, pro se filings accounted for 48% of new cases in the federal appeals courts nationwide, indicating how widespread self-representation has become.[7]
In the context of small claims in New York City, self-representation is similarly widespread. Yet many arrive unprepared without contracts, receipts, photographs or witness statements. Some do not understand the burden of proof or how to structure their presentation. This puts both claimants and respondents at a disadvantage, and limits the ability of arbitrators to issue fair and well-supported decisions.
When arbitrators lack documentation or clarity from either party, they are often left to rely on memory, verbal claims or fragmented timelines — making decisions more susceptible to challenge or inaccuracy. This can result in dismissed cases, default rulings or judgments that fail to fully capture the harm experienced.
The court system should invest in low-cost or no-cost resources to help litigants prepare. These might include:
- A digital claimant and respondent tool kit, i.e., an online guide with checklists, sample exhibits, visual timelines and a walkthrough of what to expect at the hearing;
- Video explainers in multiple languages — short clips showing how to prepare a case, introduce evidence and understand judgments; and
- Community-based workshops that partner with local legal clinics, libraries or advocacy groups to provide periodic sessions on how to navigate small claims procedures.
When litigants arrive prepared, cases move faster, outcomes improve, and participants leave with a better understanding of what happened and why. Clearer expectations and guidance help demystify the process and reduce the perception of bias or arbitrariness, regardless of the outcome.
3. Establish clearer protocols for adjournments and defaults.
Repeated adjournments and no-show defendants are a chronic problem in the New York City Small Claims Court. It is not uncommon for claimants to attend court two or three times before their case is heard, which imposes logistical burdens and diminishes public confidence in the process. Some parties may even exploit procedural leniency to delay proceedings without consequence.
Excessive leniency in the face of repeat no-shows undermines the integrity of the court and the time of claimants who arrive prepared. When a party fails to appear repeatedly without explanation, there should be firm, transparent protocols to determine how and when an inquest can proceed.
To address this, the court should:
- Set clearer default rules — establish guidelines for when a party forfeits the right to future adjournments after a specified number of absences;
- Create a centralized appearance tracking system — record no-shows across cases and courtrooms to flag abuse of the system; and
- Provide arbitrators with structured discretion. Develop a framework for when an inquest can proceed — e.g., after two missed appearances, with proper notice — empowering arbitrators to act decisively but fairly.
These reforms would safeguard the dignity of litigants who make every effort to be present and prepared, while still protecting the due process rights of those who face legitimate barriers to attendance.
Conclusion
The small claims court plays a vital role in New York City's justice system. For many, it is the only courtroom they will ever enter. Ensuring that it functions fairly and efficiently is not a procedural concern — it's an access-to-justice imperative.
By investing in arbitrator training, litigant preparation and procedural clarity, the court can improve outcomes, reduce delays and uphold the principle that justice, even in small doses, must still be just.
Charles A. Montorio-Archer is a small claims arbitrator at the New York City Civil Court.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of their employer, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
[1] NBC Bay Area, "U.S. Immigration Court Backlog Reaches 3.75 Million Cases," 2025.
[2] Antrell Thomas et al vs. Anthony S. Evers et al 2022CV001027 (Brown County Cir.); See also PBS Wisconsin, "Wisconsin's Shortage of Public Defenders Means Felony Cases Take Longer to Resolve," 2025.
[3] KSAT, "Unfiled Domestic Violence Cases Add Up in Bexar County Misdemeanor Courts; Judges Call for Solutions," 2025.
[4] New York State Unified Court System, Annual Report 2023 (Office of Court Administration, 2024), available athttps://www.nycourts.gov/legacyPDFS/23-Annual-Report.pdf.
[5] Ibid.
[6] New York State Unified Court System, "Small Claims Arbitrator Training Materials," Office of Court Administration (2022).
[7] U.S. Courts, Judicial Business 2024, https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/reports/statistical-reports/judicial-business-united-states-courts/judicial-business-2024.