Brian D. Ginsberg, who leads the firm’s Appellate Practice Group, weighed in on the New York State Supreme Court rule changes that took effect this week in a recent New York Law Journal article.

Brian discussed a rule created for the Commercial Division of the state Supreme Court to expressly authorize motions for leave to file amicus curiae briefs.

“Amicus filings offer nonparties who have a special interest or expertise in the case or the subject-matter to provide the court with their perspective on the relevant issues and cover legal, factual, and policy ground that the parties to the case might not have the bandwidth to explore,” Brian said.

He also commented on an administrative order repealing a trial court rule regarding the procedure for summary judgment motions. The order had permitted trial courts to require parties to file consecutively numbered statements of allegedly uncontested material facts, as well as similarly numbered response statements.

“I understand from reading the report of the Office of Court Administration accompanying the repeal proposal that parties were filing such statements even when not directed by courts to do so, and that the volume of ‘extra’ material created by those filings proved to be a burden to courts and litigants—and that this burden was part of the motivation for proposing the repeal,” Brain said. “I worry that the outright repeal of the rule could be viewed as prohibiting courts from requiring separate numbered factual statements even on a case-by-case basis, which could present its own problems in instances where courts believe it would be beneficial to impose such a requirement.”

Read the full article (subscription may be required).