New York Courts Seek Public Comment on Six Proposed Rule Changes

The Administrative Board of the Courts is soliciting public comment on six proposed amendments to New York court rules. The six proposed rule changes are outlined below and open for public comment:

Request for Public Comment on a proposal to add a new 22 NYCRR § 202.16-d relating to the filing of papers in matrimonial actions [Comments due May 8].

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.

Request for Public Comment on a proposal to 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 in certain circumstances [Comments due May 8].

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.

Request for Public Comment on a proposal to add two new rules to authorize e-filing in the City Courts outside New York City and the District Courts [Comments due May 8].

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.

Request for Public Comment on a proposal to ensure that summary housing proceedings involving the Red Hook Houses will continue to be adjudicated at the Red Hook Community Justice Center [Comments due May 8].

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.

Request for Public Comment on a proposal to amend 22 NYCRR Part 137 relating to the Attorney-Client Fee Dispute Resolution Program, to increase certain threshold monetary amounts [Comments due May 15].

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.

Request for Public Comment on a proposal to amend Commercial Division Rule 14 regarding good faith consultations on discovery disputes [Comments due May 22].

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.


How to comment: Written comments may be submitted by email to [email protected] or by mail to David Nocenti, Esq., Counsel, Office of Court Administration, 25 Beaver Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10004. Comments are public records subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law.

All six proposals, along with supporting memoranda and proposed rule text, are available on the UCS public comment page. Submission of a proposal for comment does not constitute an endorsement by the Unified Court System or the Office of Court Administration.

AABANY Files Comments in Response to the March 24, 2023 Public Briefing on the Federal Response to Anti-Asian Racism in the United States

The Asian American Bar Association of New York (AABANY) submitted a letter on April 24, 2023 to the United States Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) expressing concern about the ongoing issue of anti-Asian hate and violence in the United States, particularly in New York. In the letter, we highlighted the increase in incidents during the COVID-19 pandemic and outlined the efforts of AABANY’s Anti-Asian Violence Task Force (AAVTF) in addressing these issues, including hosting webinars, publishing reports, advocating for legislative changes, and providing resources to support victims. While we appreciate the USCCR for drawing attention to anti-Asian crimes, we believe that there is much more work to be done. AABANY presented three recommendations to combat anti-Asian hate crimes: improved hate crime data reporting, recognition of the community as a victim and investigative partner, and appropriate training for prosecutors and law enforcement. We emphasized the importance of collaboration between the government, law enforcement, and community organizations to ensure the safety of the Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) community.

To read AABANY’s public comment in its entirety, please click here. AABANY gratefully acknowledges the efforts of Chris Kwok, Issues Committee Chair, and AABANY Student Leaders Jinny Lim, J.D. candidate, Seton Hall Law School ‘24, and Catherine Tran, J.D. Candidate, Columbia Law School ‘25, in preparing this submission.

NAPABA Submits Comment Opposing Proposed Public Charge Rule Targeting Immigrants

On Dec. 10, 2018, NAPABA submitted a public comment to the Department of Homeland Security to oppose the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” which expands the definition of “public charge” and targets legal immigration. The NPRM prevents the reunification of families, creates unnecessary burdens for entry, and adversely impacts the health and safety of immigrant communities. NAPABA thanks its affiliates and members who submitted comments to the Department of Homeland Security opposing the proposed regulations. 

AABANY submitted its comments opposing the proposed public charge rule. To read it go to https://blog.aabany.org/2018/12/26/aabany-comments-on-public-charge-rule/?preview_id=6369&preview_nonce=262c63a5d0&preview=true

Reappointment of Federal Public Defender Lisa Peebles

The current term of office of Federal Public Defender Lisa Peebles, Federal Public Defender for the Northern District of New York is due to expire on October 24, 2017. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is considering the reappointment of Ms. Peebles to a new four year term of office and has determined that she appears to merit reappointment subject to public
notice and opportunity for public comment. The Federal Public Defender provides federal criminal defense services to individuals unable to afford counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3006A(g)(2)(A) and, upon reappointment, the incumbent would continue to exercise his/her authority. Members of the bar and the public are invited to submit comments for consideration by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the reappointment of Federal Public Defender Lisa Peebles to a new term of office. All comments will be kept confidential and should be directed to:

Karen Greve Milton
Circuit Executive
U.S. Courts for the Second Circuit
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007

Comments must be received no later than September 11, 2017.

EFiling – N.Y. State Courts

EFiling – N.Y. State Courts

EFiling – N.Y. State Courts

EFiling – N.Y. State Courts

SDNY BOARD OF JUDGES ADOPTS LOCAL RULE 83.10, A PLAN FOR CERTAIN § 1983 CASES AGAINST THE CITY OF NEW YORK

The Board of Judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has adopted Local Civil Rule 83.10, which governs how certain 1983 cases against the City of New York are managed.

Initially a pilot program implemented in 2011, the goal of the Local Rule is to improve the administration of justice by standardizing discovery and the dates of production, resulting in more material being produced earlier in the process so as to aid in the required early mediation or settlement conference. The 1983 Plan is responsible for the settlement of 70% of Plan-eligible cases in the first six months after the filing of a complaint.

The Board of Judges extended the pilot program in 2013, and it adopted the plan into the courts Local Rules after soliciting public feedback on the program. The rule will become effective upon approval by the Second Circuit Judicial Council. Prior to the revised rule taking effect, the public is invited to comment. Comments are to be submitted in writing on or at the close of business on Friday, July 20, 2014 to:

Edward A. Friedland
District Court Executive
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street, Room 820
New York, NY 10007-1312

A complete version of the Plan and the codified Local Rule follows this notice and can be found at the court’s website at http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov.

EDNY, SDNY Seek Comment on Local Rules Amendments

EASTERN AND SOUTHERN DISTRICTS ADOPT REVISIONS TO LOCAL RULES, INVITE PUBLIC COMMENT

The United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York have adopted amendments to Local Civil Rules 5.2, 6.1, 7.1, and 37.2. The revisions are available at https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/ or www.nysd.uscourts.gov. Prior to the revised rules taking effect, the public is invited to comment. Comments are to be submitted in writing on or at the close of business on Friday, June 28, 2013 to either:

Edward A. Friedland
District Court Executive
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street, Room 820
New York, NY 10007-1312

or

Douglas C. Palmer
Clerk of Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza
Brooklyn, NY 11201

The revisions will become effective upon approval by the Second Circuit Judicial Council.