Home Commercial Commercial Division to adopt new rule requiring compliant pleadings to be interlined – Trials, Appeals and Compensation

Commercial Division to adopt new rule requiring compliant pleadings to be interlined – Trials, Appeals and Compensation


To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com.

Effective September 12, 2022, New York Commercial Division rules will require parties preparing responding pleadings to “interline” the allegations they are responding to in the responses themselves. Under new rule 202.70(g), titled “Interlineation of Responsive Pleadings,” counsel will essentially be required to rephrase the allegations in the complaint before responding to them in a response. The rule change will also apply to responses to counterclaims and counterclaims.

The rationale for the newly added Commercial Division Rule 6(d), as set forth in the memorandum regarding the request for public comment on the proposed amendment to Commercial Division Rule 6 to require line spacing conforming pleadings, is that it allows the parties and the court to read the answer itself, as a single document, without having to refer to the original pleading. By adopting Rule 6(d), a single document (the response) can now, theoretically, be used in various contexts. For example, and according to the Sub-Committee on Procedural Rules to Promote Efficient Case Resolution (the “Sub-Committee”), interline pleadings will facilitate motions to correct pleadings under the CPLR § 3024, as well as motions challenging a party’s response to CPLR § 3018 requirements. Now that compliant pleadings will contain both the original allegation and the response to it, the petitioner will be able to court to the specific allegation-response pair which it claims is inconsistent with the CPLR.

The Sub-Committee also believes that the addition will also make it possible to quickly consult the pleadings in a single document, rather than comparing several documents at the same time. This will allow parties to quickly reference certain admissions or denials and hopefully tailor their requests for disclosure more precisely. This will also assist parties in depositions, as only one exhibit will be required, insofar as counsel wishes to question a deponent about particular admissions or denials contained in the reply argument. This is especially useful in more complex, high-value cases where reactive pleadings and pleadings are usually quite lengthy and incredibly detailed, leaving room for confusion when comparing and using various procedural documents, both for the parties and for the court.

The question also arises as to whether Rule 6 will eliminate the need for parties to attach both the original pleading and the pleading in response to any motion, including motions for summary judgment. Although it is unlikely and prudent to attach both the Complaint and the Response to such motions, the addition of Rule 6 streamlines the court’s ability to refer to a single document, as opposed to together when reviewing attachments to motion documents.

At the very least, however, the addition of Rule 6 is likely to have practical implications on the application of CPLR § 4012. For example, during a dispute, it is only on the eve of the trial that the allegations contained in the complaint (or other pleadings) and the response thereto are incorporated into a single document under the marked pleadings. Accordingly, the subcommittee finds that the rule change effectively modifies the requirements of CPLR § 4012, and Rule 6(d) now eliminates the need for a party to formally prepare “marked pleadings” in preparation for trial. , because the interlinear pleadings were presumably prepared at the start of an action. Gone are the days of lining up a complaint and a response, side by side, allegation by allegation, in preparation for trial. In fact, under the Commercial Division Rule 6 Amendment, the marked pleadings were prepared in the early stages of litigation, months (or years) before the trial began.

The ultimate hope with the addition of Rule 6(d) to the Commercial Division Rules is to increase the readability and usability of reactive pleadings as well as relying on a single document, at the instead of always comparing at least two documents side by side. . Hopefully, practitioners will experience a level of efficiency that was not available before, notwithstanding the additional time it will take to draft and prepare pleadings in accordance with Rule 6(d) now.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: US Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration