Friday, January 22, 2010

NY Court Clerks Get New Rules On Rejecting Papers

When you are up against a deadline, the prospect of a court clerk rejecting papers can not just be problematic, but fatal. And because of prior instances where some clerks have rejected papers based on their understanding (or misunderstanding) of rules, the Office of Court Administration has issued changes.

There are now just four reasons for a clerk to reject papers:

1) papers that do not have an index number,
(2) documents commencing or concluding a lawsuit that do not list the names of all parties,
(3) filings offered in the wrong county, or
(4) documents not signed as required by court rules authorizing sanctions for frivolous contentions.

The rules come because the White Plains general practice firm of Tilem & Campbell brought a lawsuit to challenge what they saw as inappropriate rejections of papers by clerks.

From today's New York Law Journal (reg. req.)

Labels: Courts

posted by Eric Turkewitz
Permanent Link

Comments:

Clerks still rule over the trial courts in New York State. It's a travesty. This is a slight improvement, but even then, I think (4) is preposterous. Just as the federal courts hold the attorney of record responsible for what he files electronically under Rule 11 -- even without an ink signature -- this formality is hardly an advance over requiring a wax seal.

Besides, seriously -- sanctions for frivolous filings? In state court?

# posted by  Ron Coleman : January 25, 2010 11:49 PM

 

What a great blog. I appreciate the plug. The clerks had this coming. Lets see if this changes their behavior. I hope it does but yet I'm skeptical.
A another note I am glad to see someone is blogging about Findlaw. I cannot believe how many attorneys have horror stories.

# posted by  Peter H. Tilem : February 04, 2010 2:02 PM

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

<$BlogBacklinkTitle$>  
<$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>

posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>

Create a Link

<< Home

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.