Analysis

Your ‘Non-Essential’ E-Filed Case COVID-Halted? Not Necessarily.

There are options for moving one’s non-essential e-filed case forward—options well worth understanding, and available even after the present health emergency subsides.

X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
A nearly empty Centre Street on Tuesday. Photo: Ryland West/ALM

Due to the coronavirus pandemic, the New York state court system has been accepting only certified essential case filings. You have an open NYSCEF e-filed case, but it’s “non-essential.” You wish to file and press forward, but you’re seemingly hamstrung, the case on hold. Or maybe not. New York procedure is guided mostly by service, not filing, and even in e-filed cases, email and old-fashion service provisions still apply, filing being secondary. Still, there exist certain traps for the unwary if a paper is served and not filed, or when operating remotely, as discussed below.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Dig Deeper

Trending Stories

 

Featured Product

Global Briefing

A weekly, curated selection of our international content from around the globe, across the business of law, in-house, regulatory, technology and more, with expert insights from our senior editors.

Learn More

Recommended Stories

Shkreli, 'Monell' Claim Under Section 1983 and Pedigree Exception to 'Miranda'

Harvey M. Stone and Richard H. Dolan |

In their Eastern District Roundup, Harvey M. Stone and Richard H. Dolan discuss several significant representative decisions handed down recently in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. udge Kiyo A. Matsumoto denied a motion for compassionate release by Martin Shkreli, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis denied a motion for a directed verdict by defendant Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority after its loss at trial in a Section 1983 case and Judge I. Leo Glasser denied a suppression motion where the evidence in question fit the pedigree exception to Miranda.

Validating Defective Corporate Acts Under DGCL Sections 204 and 205

Joseph M. McLaughlin and Shannon K. McGovern |

In their corporate litigation column, Joseph M. McLaughlin and Shannon K. McGovern discuss the recent decision in 'Applied Energetics,' which explores the remedies of ratification and validation in Sections 204 and 205 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

New York Law JournalBook

New York Law Journal, serving the bench and the bar since 1888

Get More Information
 

More from ALM

 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Privacy Policy

About Us / Contact Us / Site Map / Advertise With Us/ Customer Service / Terms of Service/ FAQ / Privacy Policy

Publications

Law Topics

Rankings

More

Law.com

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.