Recent and Pending Amendments to New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules and Uniform Commercial Division Rules

Although the trend in U.S. civil practice during the past hundred years undoubtedly has hewed toward procedural uniformity across jurisdictions, with some thirty-five states having adopted civil-procedure regimes based in large part on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the New York legislature apparently has not seen fit to adopt a procedural regime that tracks the federal model. Indeed, New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) may be the most prominent example of a modern state-court procedural regime that finds its roots in sui generis rulemaking, rather than adherence to the federal model. At the same time, certain recent amendments to the Commercial Division Rules, which supplement and, in some instances, modify, the standards under the CPLR as applied to substantial commercial disputes pending in New York’s Commercial Division courts, suggest a trend toward increasing conformity with existing rules of federal practice, at least insofar as the litigation of such commercial disputes is concerned.

In this program, attorneys Jennifer H. Rearden and Gabriel Herrmann of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP summarize the key components of several recent and pending amendments to both the CPLR and the Commercial Division Rules, and assess their potential impact on future civil practice in the New York courts. 

1. Review new provisions relating to Alternative Dispute Resolution
2. Understand the recent amendments underscoring the need for greater cooperation, as well as new guidelines for raising disclosure disputes with the court
3. Summarize the amendments relating to responses and objections to document requests
4. Evaluate New York’s latest rule amendments governing electronic case commencement and filing of litigation papers
5. Assess the extent to which evolving rule provisions governing commercial practice in New York’s Commercial Division courts actually reflect a trend toward conformity with rules of federal practice, rather than adherence to New York’s existing procedural regime