Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senators spar over bill to standardize exhibit tabs on court filings; bill restored and passes
Summary
A contested civil practice measure (Calendar No. 42, Senate Print 52 88) drew questions on March 17 about whether it would apply broadly to all courts or only to family court pleadings; the sponsor said it fixes inconsistent judge-imposed tab rules. By consent the bill was restored to the noncontroversial calendar and passed by recorded vote.
A contested civil procedure bill on the Senate calendar prompted exchanges on March 17 over its scope and potential unintended consequences before the chamber restored the measure to the noncontroversial calendar and passed it by recorded vote.
The bill appeared on the controversial calendar as "Calendar number 42, Senate print 52 88" amending provisions of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Senator Rose rose to question the sponsor about scope, saying she understood the change was intended to address pendente lite child and spousal support filings in family court but worried that the bill's text (adding a subdivision to CPLR 2101) would apply "to every court in the state of New York." Rose asked why such broad application was needed when the justification memo focused on family court circumstances.
The sponsor (on the floor as the bill's sponsor) responded that the draft fixes a technical but consequential problem: pleadings have been rejected across parts and courts when exhibits are not tabbed in the way a particular judge expects, sometimes causing a pleading to be denied and a statute of limitations to expire. The sponsor said the change allows either a clearly labeled exhibit page or a small tab and intends to prevent judges from requiring a single, idiosyncratic tab style. Other senators raised concerns that the fix was broad and that more narrowly tailored language might be preferable, especially when filings are handled by trained attorneys.
Senator Rhodes and others urged caution about using a "meat cleaver" approach for what one called a narrow procedural fix; sponsor supporters argued pro se filers and uneven local part rules create unfair rejections. After brief exchanges the debate was closed, the bill was restored to the noncontroversial calendar by consent and a recorded vote was taken; the clerk announced the result as 45 ayes and 15 nays and the bill was passed.
The measure, as described on the floor, is procedural in intent — standardizing acceptable ways to label exhibits on pleadings — but senators disagreed about whether the statutory change should be narrowly focused on parts where the problem has been most acute or apply systemwide.
The bill will proceed according to Senate procedures following passage.
