New York County - Civil Branch
Assignments and Case Management
ASSIGNMENTS AND CASE MANAGEMENTConcerning: Arrangement of Court Parts and Assignment of Justices / The Comprehensive Civil Justice Program / Assignment of City Cases / Differentiated Case Management ("DCM") / Neutral Evaluation (informally known as "Mediation") / Assignments for Trial / Automated City Case and Motor Vehicle DCM
A. ASSIGNMENTS AND OPERATION OF THE PARTS IN GENERAL
The court currently operates the following Parts: (a) Tax Certiorari and Condemnation; (b) City; (c) Transit; (d) Matrimonial; (e) Motor Vehicle; (f) Medical, Dental and Podiatric Malpractice; (g) Mass Tort; (h) Article 81 Parts; and (i) General. In addition, the court operates the Commercial Division, which handles commercial cases, and trial parts.
Justices are assigned to the various parts by the Administrative Judge. Upon the filing of an RJI, cases are identified by action type and then by an automated process assigned at random to a Justice from among those designated to handle cases of that type.
1. The Comprehensive Civil Justice Program and Case Assignments
In 2000, the court began implementation of the Comprehensive Civil Justice Program ("CCJP"). Under the CCJP, each case is generally assigned to an IAS Justice for its life, including for trial purposes, except for City cases. Each City case is assigned to a City Justice until a note of issue is filed, when it is reassigned to the City Waiting List in calendar number order.
The pure IAS regime is qualified as follows. If a pure IAS Justice calls in a group of cases for trial expecting that one or several will settle and the expectations are disappointed, he or she may be able to give a brief adjournment to a case and resolve the problem. Since the ability to issue firm trial dates is important to the achievement of settlements and to counsel’s ability to schedule and prepare for trials, and since parties and witnesses also need to be able to depend upon the accuracy of trial dates, the Justice will not wish to grant a long adjournment. However, circumstances may arise in which even a brief adjournment is not possible (e.g., an expert witness’s schedule prohibits it or there is a witness from afar). Such cases may be referred out to trial before another Justice through the Administrative Coordinating Part (Part 40) as described hereafter. Second, after a case has been pending in a pure IAS Part for a period without having advanced to trial, it will be subject to removal from the Part by the Administrative Judge for prompt trial so as to prevent serious backlogs and disparities in waiting times in the IAS Parts. Cases so removed will also proceed to trial through the Administrative Coordinating Part. Third, some cases, with the approval of the assigned Justice, may be referred to Part 40 for trial by a Neutral Evaluation Attorney when settlement cannot be reached in the Neutral Evaluation Program.
In implementation of the CCJP, there are at present various pure IAS General Assignment Parts (handling General cases), one Motor Vehicle Part, five pure IAS Medical, Dental and Podiatric Malpractice Parts, and three pre-note City Parts and one Transit Part (for City and non-City Transit cases). To address the overflow of trial-ready cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, and to assist in trial of City cases to the extent that the City Justices are unable to accommodate all such cases ready for trial, there are a number of back-up Trial Parts. An Administrative Coordinating Judge ("ACJ") in Part 40, working with the Administrative Judge ("AJ"), coordinates referral of these trial-ready cases to a trial Justice. Pure IAS Justices refer cases to the ACJ. Except for the Motor Vehicle Justice and the AJ or ACJ, an IAS Justice will not refer a case directly to another Justice for trial as this would defeat the implementation of a major component of CCJP.
In addition, there are, as noted, Commercial Division Parts. There are also Justices assigned on a rotating basis from upstate to assist the court with the trial of ready cases. These Justices are assigned to one or more Upstate Trial Parts, located at 71 Thomas Street. A number of Justices, primarily from the Appellate Term, handle Article 81 matters and two Justices divide the large tax certiorari inventory. Finally, several Justices have been designated by the Administrative Judge to serve as part of a Center for Complex Litigation, which handles mass tort cases. The Justices so assigned are Justice Helen E. Freedman (Part 39), Justice Marcy S. Friedman (Part 57), Justice Shirley W. Kornreich (Part 54), and Justice Martin Shulman (Part 1). These Justices also maintain other assignments.
All cases seeking forfeiture of criminal proceeds or other remedy pursuant to Article 13-A of the Civil Practice Law and Rules are assigned to a single Justice (Justice Martin Shulman).
City cases are assigned in accordance with a protocol. For access to this protocol, click here.
For the current arrangement of Parts and assignment of Justices thereto, click here.
2. Differentiated Case Management
The CCJP also introduced the concept of Differentiated Case Management ("DCM"), whereby cases are assigned to one of three tracks upon filing of the RJI: standard, expedited and complex. Medical Malpractice and Commercial Division cases are considered complex matters unless the filing attorney designates otherwise on the RJI. All Motor Vehicle cases are treated as expedited matters upon filing. All other cases are treated as standard cases when filed.
Pursuant to Uniform Rule 202.19 (b), a preliminary conference must be held within 45 days after the RJI is filed. The Rule is interpreted to mean that if the RJI accompanies a non-discovery motion, the conference shall be held within 45 days after the decision on the motion, assuming that the decision does not dispose of the case. If the RJI accompanies a disclosure motion, the preliminary conference shall be held within 45 days. See Uniform Rule 202.8 (f). At the preliminary conference, the court will consider requests by a party to modify the DCM track.
The time within which discovery must be completed according to the Rule varies depending on the track to which a case is assigned. The deadlines are:
Expedited - Eight months from RJI
Standard - 12 months from RJI
Complex - 15 months from RJI
These deadlines also constitute pre-note standards and goals for purposes of internal tracking of case activity. Since these time frames are calculated from RJI, the court must be attentive to the early commencement of the discovery process even if the case is one in which a preliminary conference need not be held within 45 days due to the filing of a non-discovery motion at the outset of the case.
A compliance conference must be held no later than 60 days before the filing of the note of issue. Rule 202.19(b).
Within 180 days from filing of the note of issue, a pretrial conference must be held at which the court will fix a date for commencement of trial, which is to be no later than eight weeks after the conference date.
The standard and goal for cases post-note is 15 months. The court system also keeps data on the overall standards and goals (pre-note and post-note combined).
Attorneys who consult the court's Supreme Court Records On-Line Library ("Scroll") on this website or the Civil Case Information System computer or who receive information from attorneys' service companies based on this data may note that the overall standards and goals deadlines are included in the computer for each applicable case in accordance with the track assignment of each case. The computer will show, for instance, a note of issue deadline for the case consistent with the track assignment of the case and in accordance with Rule 202.19. However, that deadline is only a benchmark; the actual date by which a note of issue must be filed in any particular case is the date directed by the Justice assigned, usually in a preliminary conference or compliance conference order.
In City cases, a unique set of DCM procedures are applied. See below.
Pre-note and trial procedures are set forth in the Uniform Rules of the Justices and, for Commercial Division cases, the Rules of the Commercial Division Justices, set out in Uniform Rule 202.70 (eff. date 1/17/06).
3. The Neutral Evaluation Program
When a note of issue is filed in a case in the General inventory (i.e., in one of the pure IAS General Assignment Parts), in a Motor Vehicle case, or in a commercial case outside the Commercial Division, the matter is promptly referred to the court’s Neutral Evaluation Program (known informally as "Mediation"). These cases are conferenced by a Neutral Evaluation Attorney, a senior Court Attorney with special experience and expertise in settlements, and settlement is explored in detail.
The procedures of the Program are explained in the Program Protocol.
4. Trial Activity
When a case is sent out for jury selection, the attorneys will be given a jury slip and must report immediately to the Central Jury Room. A jury will be selected in accordance with Uniform Rule 202.33. There is a five-day maximum time during which a selected jury may wait for trial to begin. Time spent on telephone standby ("TCI") is included. After five days the jury must be disbanded.
5. Placement of Cases for Trial
Cases reach the Jury Room from the pure IAS Parts, the Motor Vehicle Part, and the Administrative Coordinating Part (Part 40). The Justice assigned to a pure IAS Part who sends a case to the Jury Room will try that case. If the IAS Justice cannot try the case, it will be sent to the Administrative Coordinating Judge. Cases processed through Part 40 will be assigned for trial in accordance with the directives of the Administrative Coordinating Judge. In this process, the Administrative Coordinating Judge will contact the Justice to whom the case had been assigned upon the filing of the RJI and offer that Justice the first opportunity to try the case. If the original IAS Justice is not available, the Administrative Coordinating Judge will assign the case to a Back-up Trial Justice or pure IAS Justice.
B. CITY CASE AUTOMATED DIFFERENTIATED CASE MANAGEMENT
1. City DCM - Overview
The court operates an automated Differentiated Case Management Program for tort cases in the City Parts, i.e., those in which the City of New York is a party and in which the City is represented by the Tort Division of the Corporation Counsel’s Office. Not included in this Program are special proceedings and City contract, medical malpractice, and lead paint cases. The aims of the Program are to expedite cases, minimize litigation expense, conserve the time of counsel, promote efficiency, and permit the City Justices to concentrate the bulk of their time on the resolution of substantive issues and trial of City cases.
2. Setting a Disclosure Schedule in City DCM Cases
Upon the filing of a request for judicial intervention and a request for a preliminary conference, the following procedures will be utilized to schedule discovery. If the RJI is filed with a non-discovery motion, this process will be followed after disposition of the motion, assuming that the decision does not dispose of the case. If the RJI is filed with a discovery motion, the motion will be referred to the court’s Case Management Office for the scheduling of a conference or the issuance of a Case Scheduling Order.
Instead of requiring that attorneys appear in court for a preliminary conference, the court will issue and transmit to the parties a Case Scheduling Order. City cases are presumed to be standard cases under the DCM regime, meaning that discovery is to be completed within 12 months from filing of the RJI. However, where the RJI is accompanied by a motion, 12 months will be allowed for discovery commencing from the time the motion is resolved, if the case remains active after the decision. The standard-form Order will contain provisions for items of discovery generally necessary in the major varieties of City case. Deadlines for the completion of the pertinent items of discovery within the overall 12-month time frame will be set forth. The Order provides that the parties may agree to adjourn various deadlines provided that all discovery due to be completed prior to the compliance conference is in fact completed by then. The Order will include an EBT date furnished by the City. Since the City will know the type of case involved at this early point and can take that into account when determining an appropriate EBT date, the expectation of the court is that the date is more likely to prove realistic than has been the case in the past under a non-automated system and to require at most only modest adjustments to suit the schedules of the parties.
The deadlines and the form of the Order were arrived at by the court after extensive consultations between representatives of the City of New York and plaintiffs' counsel on, and other members of, this court's Tort Advisory Committee. To consult a copy of this form Order, click here.
This Order will be transmitted by the Case Management Office to counsel by fax, e-mail or regular mail. Counsel will be afforded a period of time within which to challenge the designation of the case as a standard matter and any aspect of the discovery schedule set out in the Order. All such challenges are to be brought to the attention of the Case Management Coordinators, who are senior court clerks specially designated to serve in this role. A conference will promptly be arranged by the Coordinator to resolve any difficulty that arises. If good reason is presented for doing so, modifications will be made to the Order. However, failure to raise objections within the period fixed will result in waiver of those objections. If no objections are raised, the parties need not appear in court and the Order as framed will govern future disclosure in the case. Avoidance of an appearance in court of course saves time and money and is helpful to counsel.
Counsel are strongly advised that the deadlines set forth in the Order must be taken seriously. Failure to comply with the Order may well result in the imposition of a penalty, such as waiver of the discovery, a financial sanction, preclusion, and the like.
3. Subsequent Disclosure Problems
In the event any disclosure dispute arises after the discovery process begins, the party aggrieved shall promptly, prior to the deadline in question and before making a motion, inform the Case Management Coordinator of the existence of the dispute. The Case Management Coordinator will promptly schedule a conference at a convenient date and time.
Conferences about discovery problems and compliance conferences will take place before Judicial Hearing Officers, the Law Secretary of the Justice assigned to the case or Court Attorneys specially designated for this purpose. In the event that the problems raised cannot be resolved in this fashion, the matter will be referred to the assigned Justice.
The court will transmit notices to the parties during the course of discovery. The purpose of these notices is to provide reminders of critical upcoming discovery deadlines so that busy counsel do not inadvertently fall into non-compliance with the court's Order.
The Case Scheduling Order will contain a date for a compliance conference. Pursuant to Uniform Rule 202.19, a compliance conference must be conducted no later than 60 days prior to filing of the note of issue. That conference will take place in a central location for all City DCM cases (Room 103 at 80 Centre Street).
4. Post-Note Procedures
Immediately after the filing of the note of issue, a conference will be scheduled in all City cases before a Judicial Hearing Officer. At this conference, an examination will be made of settlement prospects. Numbers of cases settle at this stage and counsel should therefore be prepared to discuss settlement in detail. The parties will also be called upon to review the state of discovery, which of course should have been completed by then. The court will confirm that the parties have received all discovery that was required, including that the City has in its file documents necessary to thorough settlement discussions, such as the relevant map in a slip and fall case. To the extent that any items have not been furnished by one side to the other, arrangements will be made for a very prompt completion of the disclosure process. It is important that this be done so that settlement discussions can be pursued thereafter, as discussed below, with all parties having in hand the information needed to evaluate the case and consider settlement.
As City cases pending on the City Waiting List near the top of the list, they will be referred to the Neutral Evaluation Program, described above. Attorneys for the plaintiffs will be required to bring their case file to conferences with a Neutral Evaluation Attorney so that discussions can be detailed and meaningful. Because of the great volume of cases being handled by the Corporation Counsel’s Office, it is not practical for that Office to transport the case files to the court in all cases being conferenced on any given day.
C. MOTOR VEHICLE AUTOMATED DIFFERENTIATED CASE MANAGEMENT
A similar automated approach is applied to Motor Vehicle cases, which, like the tort cases in the City Parts, tend to be homogeneous. As with the City cases, an automated Case Scheduling Order will be issued by the Case Management Office upon filing of an RJI accompanied by a request for a preliminary conference or a discovery motion, or after disposition by the court of a non-disclosure motion if the case remains active. To consult a copy of this form, click here. Motor Vehicle cases are presumed to be expedited cases. Objections to the Order will be addressed by conference call or conference. Should any disclosure difficulties arise thereafter, the Case Management Office must be advised immediately, in advance of the deadline in issue and prior to motion practice. The Office will transmit periodic reminder notices. Compliance conferences will be conducted as needed to assure compliance with the Order.
September 2006
|
