Key Takeaway
New York court ruling on e-filing deadlines and venue change motions. Learn how electronic filing requirements affect procedural deadlines in personal injury cases.
Woodward v Millbrook Ventures LLC 2017 NY Slip Op 02522 (1st Dept. 2017)
“Supreme Court properly concluded that defendants’ motion was untimely. Having consented to electronic filing, defendants were required to serve their papers electronically (Uniform Rules for Trial Cts § 202.5-b), and indeed served their demand for change of venue, together with their answer, by e-filing the documents on July 14, 2015 (22 NYCRR 202.5-b). Having served their demand, defendants were required to bring their motion to change venue within 15 days, or by July 29, 2015 (CPLR 511). However, defendants did not bring their motion until July 31, 2015, rendering it untimely. That defendants also elected to serve their demand via United States mail did not extend the deadline for their motion under CPLR 2103(b)(2). Because they consented to participate in Supreme Court’s e-filing system, defendants were bound by the applicable rules governing service”
The e-filing world is the present and the future. At some point, OCA or the Legislature will mandate e-filing state-wide for all courts of record. I doubt village courts will ever become e-filing courts, but they are not courts of record and exist in their own sordid manner.
The point here is that unless you perform an act on the e-filing system, it never happened.
The Respondent in this case is a no-fault legend emeritus and someone I consider a friend, Amos Weinberg, Esq. While I did email you privately, I will publicly state you did a good job on this one Amos.
Related Articles
- Understanding litigation delay tactics and procedural requirements in no-fault cases
- Single motion rule and statute of limitations procedural requirements
- How form defects can be corrected through proper reply procedures
- Second chances in motion practice when parties make procedural mistakes
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
