New York Courts Seek Public Comment on Six Proposed Rule Changes

A new rule (22 NYCRR § 202.16-d) would require the Supreme Court to promptly deliver all papers in matrimonial actions including judgments of divorce, ancillary orders, and post-disposition documents directly to the county clerk instead of entrusting original papers to attorneys or litigants to file. The proposal addresses a documented problem in some courts outside New York City where unfiled or late-filed papers have made it difficult for parties to enforce divorce judgments on matters like child support, custody, and equitable distribution. To read more click here.

The proposal would amend 22 NYCRR §§ 206.3 and 206.26 to authorize the Presiding Judge of the Court of Claims to refer matters to a judicial hearing officer (JHO) upon the consent of the parties, on a judge’s recommendation, or on the Presiding Judge’s own initiative. The change is driven by the surge of cases filed under the Adult Survivors Act which includes approximately 1,700 civil claims against state agencies, more than 1,500 of them against the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. Many of these cases are now approaching trial readiness, and retired Court of Claims judges serving as JHOs would help manage the resulting backlog. To read more click here.

Two new rules (22 NYCRR §§ 210.4-a and 212.4-a) would extend mandatory e-filing via NYSCEF to the City Courts outside New York City and the District Courts. This follows last year’s expansion of mandatory e-filing to the Supreme Court (Civil Term), NYC Civil Court, and the Court of Claims. The proposed rules mirror the framework adopted for NYC Civil Court and preserve exemptions for self-represented litigants and attorneys without e-filing capability. Immediate plans call for rolling out NYSCEF to the 11 City Courts in the 9th Judicial District. To read more click here.

Amendments to 22 NYCRR §§ 208.42 and 208.43 would remove the requirement that NYCHA be a party to a proceeding in order for housing cases involving the Red Hook Houses to be heard at the Red Hook Community Justice Center. The change is prompted by the Red Hook West Houses’ ongoing conversion under the federal RAD/PACT program, which will transfer day-to-day management to a private LLC. Without the amendment, those cases would shift to Brooklyn Housing Court — a result that local judges and advocates say would deprive residents of the community court’s integrated social services, which have eliminated evictions among participating residents since 2022. To read more click here.

Proposed amendments to 22 NYCRR Part 137 would raise two monetary thresholds in New York’s Fee Dispute Resolution Program: the maximum amount in dispute (absent party consent) would increase from $50,000 to $75,000, and the threshold triggering a three-arbitrator panel would rise from $10,000 to $20,000. The $50,000 cap has been in place since 2002; adjusted for inflation it would be roughly $91,500 today. Program caseloads have dropped 38% over the past decade even as average disputed amounts have grown, a trend the Board of Governors attributes in part to the eroding value of the cap. To read more click here.

The Commercial Division Advisory Council proposes revising Rule 14 of the Commercial Division Rules (22 NYCRR § 202.70) to strengthen and modernize its good-faith consultation requirements for discovery disputes. Key changes would require counsel to make a “thorough, good-faith” effort to resolve or narrow disputes before contacting the court; submit a formal certification (rather than a mere representation) detailing the date, manner, participants, results, and whether cost-shifting or proportionality alternatives were discussed; and allow courts to deny discovery motions filed without satisfying the rule. The revisions align Rule 14 with Uniform Civil Rule 202.20-f and draw on the recently adopted Texas Business Court rules. To read more click here.