Key Takeaway
New York appellate court clarifies when procedural defects are fatal versus correctable, emphasizing courts should allow supplementation rather than dismissal.
Understanding Procedural Defects in New York Courts
Procedural missteps happen in litigation, but when do they doom a case versus simply require correction? A recent New York appellate decision provides important guidance on this distinction, particularly regarding motion practice and the attachment of supporting documents.
The case involves a foreclosure action where a party sought to intervene but failed to attach a crucial document—the judgment of foreclosure—to their motion papers. While the trial court treated this as a fatal flaw, the appellate court took a more nuanced approach, demonstrating how courts should balance procedural requirements with substantive justice.
This decision reflects broader principles in New York civil practice, where courts generally prefer allowing parties to correct the form of their papers rather than dismissing cases on technical grounds. Understanding these procedural rules is crucial for practitioners navigating the state’s complex civil procedure requirements.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Citimortgage, Inc. v Dulgeroff, 2016 NY Slip Op 02573
The Civil Court, Kings County briefing schedule notwithstanding:“Contrary to the motion court’s ruling, West Fork’s failure to attach the judgment of foreclosure to its motion to intervene and to vacate the judgment is not a fatal defect. At most, the court should have directed West Fork to supplement or resubmit its papers (see Sea Trade Mar. Corp. v Coutsodontis, 111 AD3d 483, 486 ). However, contrary to West Fork’s argument, the order on appeal need not be vacated for failure to recite the papers on which it is based (see Singer v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 97 AD2d 507 ).”
Key Takeaway
Courts should generally allow parties to supplement deficient motion papers rather than dismissing them outright. Missing attachments or documents typically constitute correctable procedural defects, not fatal flaws. However, this principle works both ways—while courts should be lenient about allowing corrections, orders need not be vacated simply for failing to recite all papers considered.
Related Articles
- Plaintiff given a second chance to correct the form of his papers
- Single Motion Rule and Statute of Limitations: Long Island & NYC Legal Guide
- A form defect can be fixed in reply
- A party that really blew it gets not only a second but a third chance to correct his mistake
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
