The abbreviated Brill rule applies (again)

Understanding the “Abbreviated Brill Rule” and Unpublished Court Procedures

In no-fault insurance litigation, timing requirements for motions can make or break a case. A recent decision highlights an important procedural issue: when courts apply unpublished local rules to limit parties’ rights under established civil procedure law. This case demonstrates how local court practices can supersede broader procedural rights, even when those practices lack formal publication or clear legal authority.

The tension between local court rules and established civil procedure becomes particularly complex when dealing with summary judgment timing requirements. While the CPLR provides clear guidelines for when parties can seek summary judgment, local court parts may impose additional restrictions that can catch practitioners off guard.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Michael Palmeri, M.D., PLLC v Allstate Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 51130(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2015)

“Defendant failed to make its motion within 60 days of the filing of the notice of trial, as required by the rules of Part 41 of the Civil Court, and failed to offer any explanation in the Civil Court for the untimeliness of its motion. Accordingly, the Civil Court properly denied defendant’s motion as untimely”

How can a rule that was never published in the law journal or set forth in a compliance conference order have precedential effect? This is especially the case when you are limiting a party’s right to exercise a right it enjoys under the CPLR?

Key Takeaway

This decision raises fundamental due process concerns about unpublished local rules that restrict procedural rights. When courts enforce timing requirements that weren’t formally published or established through proper rulemaking procedures, it creates uncertainty for practitioners and potentially violates parties’ rights to timely motion practice under the CPLR.