The New Motion Practice Rules
Recently, the Chief Administrative Judge of New York promulgated numerous amendments and additions to the Uniform Rules, which became effective on Feb. 1, 2021. In this edition of his Law and the Family column, Joel R. Brandes discusses several of the new Uniform Rules, which are in addition to or compliment the matrimonial rules.
March 05, 2021 at 03:15 PM
10 minute read
Title 22, Part 202 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) contains the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (Uniform Rules). They supplement the Civil Practice Law and Rules to regulate practice and procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the Supreme Court and the County Court. 22 NYCRR 202.1. Recently, the Chief Administrative Judge of New York promulgated numerous amendments and additions to the Uniform Rules, which became effective on Feb. 1, 2021. See AO/270/2020.
Two of the Uniform Rules are specifically applicable in matrimonial actions and are referred to in this article as the "matrimonial rules." 22 NYCRR 202.16 is applicable to all contested actions and proceedings in the Supreme Court in which statements of net worth are required to be filed by Domestic Relations Law §236, and in which a judicial determination may be made with respect to alimony, counsel fees, pendente lite, maintenance, custody and visitation, child support, or the equitable distribution of property, including those referred to Family Court by the Supreme Court pursuant Family Court Act §464. See 22 NYCRR 202.16(a). Motions for alimony, maintenance, counsel fees or child support or any modification of such an award are governed by 22 NYCRR 202.16(k)(3), which was amended on Jan. 19, 2021 to include post judgment motions. This rule is not applicable to a motion pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §§237(c) or 238 for counsel fees for services rendered by an attorney to secure the enforcement of a previously granted order or decree.
22 NYCRR 202.16-b, which was adopted in 2017 and amended on Jan. 19, 2021, is applicable to all matrimonial actions and proceedings in the Supreme Court authorized by Domestic Relations Law §236(B)(2). Unless otherwise expressly provided by any provision of the CPLR or other statute, its rules and limitations apply (in addition to the requirements of 22 NYCRR §202.16(k) where applicable) to the submission of papers on pendente lite applications for alimony, maintenance, counsel fees, child support, exclusive occupancy, custody and visitation unless its requirements are waived by the judge for good cause. See 22 NYCRR 202.16-b(2).
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
© 2025 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 All'A Shock to the System’: Some Government Attorneys Are Forced Out, While Others Weigh Job Options
7 minute read'Serious Legal Errors'?: Rival League May Appeal Following Dismissal of Soccer Antitrust Case
6 minute readHow Some Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 2Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 3Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 4Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
- 5Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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