Surrogate's Court procedure is often considered confusing and counter-intuitive by some practitioners who are unfamiliar with it. Surrogate's Court procedure has developed over time and it is beyond the scope of this article to get into a discussion about how and why its procedure is what it is today. Suffice it to say that something as simple as raising affirmative defenses has complexities not found in Supreme Court practice. This is especially true in accounting proceedings, the procedural vehicle where parties often litigate a whole panoply of claims. So why should asserting affirmative defenses in an accounting proceeding be any different than a Supreme Court action?

To answer this we have to go back to the basic difference in the pleadings in a normal civil action under the CPLR and pleadings permitted in Surrogate's Court. Pursuant to the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act (SCPA) 302, unless otherwise provided for elsewhere in the SCPA, the only pleadings permitted are a petition, answer or objections and account. Indeed, the act specifically states that there "shall be no other pleading unless directed by the court." SCPA 302(b); see also Matter of Rothschild, 251 A.D. 639 (3d Dept. 1937); Matter of Kilborn, 232 A.D. 580 (1st Dept. 1931); Matter of Gerbereux, 148 Misc. 461, 266 N.Y.S. 134 (Sur. Ct. Westchester Cty. 1933).