Updates on COVID-19's Impact on Commercial Appeals
New York Court of Appeals Expands Digital Filings, While the Appellate Division Lifts Moratorium on Filing Deadlines and Hears Skype Argument
May 29, 2020 at 10:15 AM
8 minute read
The progress of taking commercial appeals in New York has been impacted significantly by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Deadlines for perfecting appeals were suspended and oral arguments were canceled. Although Skype conferences were being held in the trial level courts, such as the Commercial Division, arguments were not being scheduled on typical appeals. Recently, as Chief Judge Janet DiFiore has overseen a gradual re-opening of significant portions of the New York courts, there have been material developments in appellate practice which affect commercial litigators. These developments reflect a sense that appeals are starting to move forward again, albeit with the naturally attendant backlogs that the COVID-19 crisis has engendered.
The State's highest court, the New York Court of Appeals, has not heard oral argument since March 17, 2020. Those March arguments were heard in a socially distanced fashion. For its April-May 2020 session, the Court announced that it will consider appeals based on the briefing and record, without oral argument.[1] Oral argument for the June session will be heard in-person, following appropriate safety protocols, although the courtroom will be closed to the general public.[2] Oral argument will be webcast live as usual.
The Court of Appeals recently amended its Rules of Practice to require submissions to be made in digital format for motions and responses to jurisdictional inquiries under Rule 500.10.[3] Along with such digital submissions, parties will still be required to file and serve printed papers in accordance with the Court's Rules of Practice. These digital submissions will be made via a Companion Filing Upload Portal, which will function similarly to Court-PASS.
The Court's Rules of Practice have also been amended to reduce the number of printed copies that must be filed. Parties will be required to file only one printed copy—down from six—for: a) civil motions seeking leave to appeal, b) reargument motions, and c) papers filed in opposition to those motions. Additionally, the appeals documents needed from the Appellate Division—as required by Rules 500.22(c), 500.26(b)(3)(iv), and 500.26(b)(4)—will only need to be filed in digital format. Motions submitted with proof of indigency will still only require one set of papers.
These new Court of Appeals rules are effective May 27, 2020.[4] Responses to Rule 500.10 jurisdictional inquiries requested on or after that date, and any motions returnable on or after June 1, 2020, must comply with these new rules. Parties may request that the digital submission requirements be waived based on a showing of undue hardship.
The Court has stressed that submitting papers digitally does not satisfy the service or filing requirements of the CPLR or the Court's Rules of Practice, and that practitioners must still meet the applicable CPLR time limits.[5] Parties are responsible for meeting the controlling due dates by filing the required number of paper documents with the Clerk's Office. It should be noted that motions, opposition papers to those motions, and responses to Rule 500.10 jurisdictional inquiries are only deemed "filed" when the Clerk's Office receives the hard paper copy.
In other appellate developments, the Appellate Division (New York's intermediate appellate court) has begun to rescind some of the orders that were made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Appellate Division, First Department, which sits in Manhattan, hears a substantial number of appeals from the Commercial Division. On May 6, 2020, the Court heard its first ever virtual oral argument over Skype. It will continue to hold virtual oral arguments until further notice. The Court has released some guidance for parties who are scheduled for these Skype arguments.[6]
Further, on May 8, 2020, the First Department rescinded its March 17, 2020 order—adopted in the wake of the early onset of Coronavirus in New York—that had temporarily suspended perfection, filing, and other deadlines for prosecuting appeals. The Court also ordered that the filing deadlines for this year's remaining court terms (i.e., September through December 2020) be reinstated.[7] As a result, the new deadline for filing responding and reply papers that have not yet been filed on motions that were returnable during the period March 16 through May 4, 2020 is now May 22, 2020. Parties must also comply with any other filing deadlines ordered by the Court or set by the Clerk of the Court. The requirement that hard copies of briefs, records, appendices, and motions be filed with the Appellate Division is still suspended until further notice.
The First Department later clarified that any deadline after May 8, 2020 must be perfected on the due date, regardless if by the six-month rule or by order of the court. These deadlines are not subject to the blanket September deadline mentioned in the Court's May 8 order. Requests for time extensions can be filed through NYSCEF or emailed to the court on non-NYSCEF matters on or before the due date.
On May 6, 2020, the Second Department rescinded its March 17, 2020 order suspending appeals deadlines and ordered that all motions—except those in which filing deadlines had been set by order or directive of the Clerk of the Court—which were returnable between March 16 and May 5, 2020 are to be adjourned as follows:
- Motions which were returnable between March 16 and March 31, 2020, were adjourned to, and were returnable on, May 18, 2020;
- Motions which were returnable between April 1 and April 15, 2020, are adjourned to, and are now returnable on, June 1, 2020;
- Motions which were returnable between April 2020 and May 6, 2020, are adjourned to, and are now returnable on, June 15, 2020.[8]
Any opposition or reply papers in relation to these filings are to be served in accordance with Section 1250.1(c) of the Rules of Practice of the Appellate Division (22 NYCRR §1250.1[c]) and via email. These papers will be deemed filed when a digital copy with proof of service is uploaded through the Second Department's digital portal. Hard copy paper filings may still be made, but as of now are not required.
In addition, the Second Department ordered that, until further notice, it is continuing to suspend filing and other deadlines established in: a) the Practice Rules of the Appellate Division (22 NYCRR part 1250), b) the Rules of Practice of the Second Department (22 NYCRR part 670), c) the Electronic Filing Rules of the Appellate Division (22 NYCRR part 1245), and d) a prior order or directive of the Clerk of the Court, relating to non-actively-managed civil matters that have not already been addressed.[9]
The Third Department similarly has lifted suspensions of deadlines for prosecuting appeals in that Court.[10] The Court has been hearing virtual appeals for its May term.
Finally, the Fourth Department has also rescinded its suspension order and has moved to virtual court operations.[11]
* * *
As Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo begins a regionally based approach to re-opening the State's economy, and Chief Judge DiFiore follows suit in a phased re-opening of court operations, commercial cases are again expected to proceed through the appeals process. Nonetheless, there are naturally bound to be backlogs once more normal operations resume, given the inability to progress cases through normal appellate routes during the COVID-19 crisis.
Endnotes:
[1] Notice to the Bar, 2020 April-May and June Sessions, New York Court of Appeals (April 23, 2020).
[2] Notice to the Bar, Returning to In-Person Operations and June 2020 Session, New York Court of Appeals (May 22, 2020).
[3] Notice to the Bar, 2020 April-May and June Sessions, New York Court of Appeals (April 23, 2020).
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] AD1 2.0 – First Department Expands Operations as a Virtual Court (App. Div. 1st Dept. Aug. 21, 2020).
[7] Order In the Matter of the Rescission of Temporary Suspension Order (App. Div. 1st Dept. May 8, 2020).
[8] ADM 2020-0506 (App. Div. 2d Dept. May 6, 2020).
[9] Id.
[10] Order Lifting Suspension of Deadlines Pertaining to Filing of Answering and Responding Briefs (App. Div. 3rd Dept. May 6, 2020).
[11] Order Lifting Suspension of Deadlines (App. Div. 4th Dept. April 17, 2020).
Stephen P. Younger is a litigation partner at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler and past president of the New York State Bar Association. Jeff Kinkle and Kade Olsen are associates in the firm's litigation department. Mr. Younger is co-editor of the firm's Commercial Division Blog, and all three attorneys are regular contributors to the blog.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDecision of the Day: Second Amendment Does Not Offer Right to Obtain Firearms 'On Demand'
Decision of the Day: Firm, Founding Partner Disqualified From Probate Case Amid Investigation on Undue Influence Claim
Decision of the Day: District Judge Vacates Magistrate's Ruling to Disqualify Prosecutors in Kidnapping Case
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Chicago Federal Court Offers Banks Relief From Illinois' Historic Credit Fee Curbs
- 2Most New Eversheds Sutherland US Partners Are in Atlanta
- 3Graffiti Showdown: Miami Clashes Over Demolition Site Cleanup Before New Year’s
- 4Phila. Jury Awards $15M to Woman Who Slipped on Apartment Building Stairs
- 5Appellate Division Greenlights State Bar's Leadership Diversity Initiatives
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250