The following numbered papers were used on this motion: NYSCEF Document Numbers 10-54. ORDER Upon the foregoing papers, the Court having elected to determine the within motion on submission pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.8-f and IAS Part 2 Rules, Part I (Motions & Special Proceedings), Subpart C (Appearances), Section 6 (Personal Appearances) (“All motions presumptively are to be argued in person unless the Court informs the parties at least two days in advance that it has made a sua sponte determination that a motion will be determined on submission.),” and due deliberation having been had thereon, It is hereby ORDERED as follows: In the instant action, in which Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by decedent, Anna Bologna, in March and April 2020 amidst the nascent COVID-19 pandemic, Defendant Carmel Richmond Nursing Home, Inc. d/b/a Carmel Richmond Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center (“Defendant”) has interposed a motion for an order pursuant to, inter alia, CPLR 3211 (a) (7), dismissing the complaint with prejudice on the ground that Defendant is immune from liability under New York’s now-repealed Emergency Disaster Treatment Protection Act (Public Health Law §§3080-3082), which afforded immunity to hospitals, nursing homes and staff related to treatment of COVID-19 patients. A review of Defendant’s motion reveals that such motion consists of 10,355 pages in the aggregate through August 18, 2023 (see NYSCEF Doc Nos. 10-45). Defendant failed to submit to this Part hardcopies of its moving papers, in contravention of this Part’s Rules, which require as follows that hardcopies be provides to the Part when a party’s papers exceed 75 pages: 3. Hardcopies. For motions where the papers are filed on NYSCEF, hardcopies of a party’s papers shall be submitted in the event that the party’s papers exceed 75 pages. This hardcopy submission — which shall include a contents list — shall be made at least nine calendar days prior to the date on which the motion is calendared, in order to facilitate review in advance by the Court. (New York State Unified Court System, 2nd JD — Civil Term, Kings Supreme Court, Hon. Aaron D. Maslow: Part 2 Rules, rule I [B] [3], https://ww2.nycourts.gov/courts/2jd/kings/civil/MaslowRules.shtml [last accessed Dec. 4, 2023].) As this Part has held in a similar situation involving movants which failed to provide the Part with hardcopies of their moving papers totaling 1,301 pages in violation of this Part’s Rules requiring that parties supply hardcopies in circumstances where their papers exceed 75 pages: Review of motions in advance is a practice of this court (see Matter of Court’s Discharge of Its Responsibilities Pursuant to 22 NYCRR §100.3 (D) (2), (3), __ Misc 3d __, 2023 NY Slip Op 23258, *1 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2023]), as is enables full consideration and deliberation which each motion deserves. It is this routine which impelled this court’s hardcopy submission rule. As the length of the motion papers filed by a party increases, the sheer amount of pages involved makes the requisite reading and deliberation an increasingly daunting task. When the number of pages reaches 75, hardcopy submission becomes an expediency. As the number of pages to review increases by the hundreds, it becomes an imperative. When a submission is over 1,000 pages, a party has a conscientious duty to the court to offer chambers a hardcopy even in the absence of a rule requiring same; it is only common sense. The presence of paper documents facilitates more comprehensive review by allowing this Court to physically annotate important points on paper, to compare papers side-by-side for opposing arguments, to more easily locate cited decisions, and to reap other benefits of reading tangible, actual documents as opposed to staring at a computer screen. While this Court’s chambers could conceivably print the motion submissions, this undertaking would deplete copy paper, toner cartridges, and time, all at taxpayer expense, which would contravene public policy. The time it takes to perform this routine would be better spent on reading other motions. It therefore becomes incumbent on parties to a motion to provide these documents in paper format in addition to the NYSCEF electronic filings when the Part Rules call for it. The value of advance preparation which informs this obligation also informs the second component of the rule, namely that hardcopies be provided at least nine days prior to the scheduled motion date. As lengthy motions typically demand higher levels of preparation, a party’s provision of hardcopies at least nine days before the calendar date enhances this Court’s ability to perform its responsibilities. (See Ramzy v. Safdi Plaza Realty Inc., 80 Misc 3d 1236(A), 2023 NY Slip Op 51175(U) [Sup Ct, Kings County 2023].) This Court finds it incredulous that a party would expect it to read over 10,000 pages off a computer screen. Based on the foregoing, in light of Defendant’s failure to provide this Court with hardcopies of its moving papers totaling 10,355 pages in the aggregate in violation of this Court’s Part Rules, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Complaint is DENIED without prejudice to renew.
