Relates to the use of electronic means for the commencement and filing of papers in certain actions and proceedings

As far back as 1999, the State began to introduce pilot programs in the use of electronic means for the purpose of commencing certain categories of cases and filing court papers with judges and with adverse parties ("e-filing"). See L. 1999, c. 367. In the years since, those programs have been continued and progressively expanded - to apply to a broader spectrum of cases in additional courts. As has been well-documented in numerous analyses and reports prepared over the years to assess the effectiveness of e-filing in New York's State courts, the pilot programs have been very successful and greeted with great enthusiasm by both bench and bar.

Authorization for use of several vital components of the State's e-filing programs -mandatory e-filing under certain circumstances in civil cases and both consensual and mandatory e-filing in criminal courts and in Family Court - is due to expire on September 1, 2015. This measure would eliminate this sunset and make several other important changes in the e-filing programs. Specifically, this measure would:

* Make permanent present authorization for the use of mandatory e-filing in Supreme Court civil parts. By all measures, e-filing in this State has been an enormous success. To date, there have been more than 820,000 cases e-filed in New York's courts By year's end, we project that this number will grow to exceed one million cases. More than 58,000 attorneys and others have become registered users of the State's electronic filing system (NYSCEF) None of this can come as a surprise. E-filing.

- benefits all sectors of the bar, particularly solo and small-firm practitioners who lack the resources of large law firms and attorneys in rural counties who must travel long distances to reach a courthouse.

- saves the bar the time and expense of serving other parties (i.e , the e-filing system serves other parties automatically and instantaneously, providing immediate access to the filed documents).

- reduces costs and enhances efficiency for the bench, County Clerks and local governments.

- is green, reducing the number of trips attorneys must make to the courthouse to file papers and the amount of paper required in litigation.

- has proven immensely successful in Federal courts and in other state courts.

To best capitalize upon these benefits, we believe it appropriate and necessary - after more than fifteen years of success with e-filing in New York - to put greater reliance upon mandatory e-filing. It has been our experience that, whether because of habit or simple inertia, consensual e-filing programs have trouble drawing participation. It is for this reason that, six years ago, the Legislature began to authorize mandatory e-filing programs. At this point, these programs, which are operative in many of the State's largest jurisdictions, are working well and ripe for expansion.

* Vest the Chief Administrative Judge with authority, provided the local County Clerk agrees, to implement mandatory e-filing in a county and in most classes of cases{1}. Present law recites the 16 specific counties in which mandatory e-filing may be authorized As we have discovered, however, this arrangement is actually counterproductive to effective roll-out of e-filing, as counties do not become ready for e-filing in easily-predictable fashion. Some of the 16 statutory counties will not be ready for e-filing for years; other counties, not now in the statute, can be ready soon -- but must wait to be added by the Legislature. This has hobbled, in some measure, the State's efforts to gain experience with e-filing Giving the Chief Administrative Judge the authority to delineate where mandatory e-filing can go forward should counter this by adding essential flexibility to the process. Moreover, to concerns that such a change would confer too much authority on the Chief Administrative Judge, it can be said that: (1) the 16 counties in which mandatory e-filing may now be authorized include most of the State's largest, most populous venues so that such additional counties as the Chief Administrative Judge might add have smaller populations and are not likely to host a great volume of litigation; (2) no expansion of mandatory e-filing may be undertaken without the approval of affected local County Clerks; (3) members of the bar will continue to enjoy their present ability to opt out of mandatory e-filing; and (4) self-represented litigants will automatically be exempt from mandatory e-filing (but able to opt in to such e-filing should they wish to do so).

* Continue present authorization for the use of e-filing, both consensual and mandatory, in criminal superior courts and Family Court. While we have as yet to exploit this authorization, it is only because of a want of resources. Sooner or later, we will be able to do this and, given the tremendous success e-filing has enjoyed in civil cases, there is little reason to doubt that it will be similarly successful in criminal court and in Family Court.

* Continue permanently, without change, programs of consensual and mandatory e-filing in Surrogate's Court and the New York City Civil Court; and programs for consensual e-filing (and filing by FAX) in the Court of Claims Bench and bar continue to register their support for the breadth and pace of e-filing's roll-out in these courts.

* Authorize use of e-filing in the Appellate Divisions at the discretion of each Judicial Department subject only to the same case exclusions for mandatory e-filing as are applied in the trial courts, and an aspirational invitation to make any implementing rules uniform.

All four Departments are anxious to see e-filing used in the cases before them, and they strongly support this initiative.

* Relocate statutes governing e-filing from the State's Unconsolidated Laws to appropriate provisions of the Consolidated Laws. Unconsolidated statutes, where e-filing authority now reposes, can be very difficult to find It is far more sensible to place that authority in more accessible and more familiar Consolidated Laws like the Judiciary Law, CPLR, CPL, etc.

This measure, which would have no meaningful fiscal impact, would take effect immediately, except that authorization for e-filing in criminal and Family Court cases would sunset on September 1, 2019.

Tributes to E-filing in New York's Courts

"It is time to end the 'experiment,' fully embrace modern technology, and by statute make e-filing a permanent part of New York practice "

--- Hon. Jonathan Lippman Chief Judge of the State of New York

"E-filing should be mandatory in all proceedings in all courts. Its use makes service and filing of papers far easier and less expensive for practicing lawyers as well as for the court system . Adoption of e-filing is an effective use of a now well-established technological tool that benefits everyone"

--- New York State Bar Association

"The overwhelming response by NYSTLA members . has been positive. E-filing has facilitated the efficient representation of clients, and brought the practice of law into the twenty-first century . . . NYSTLA is strongly in favor of further expanding the e-filing program."

--- New York State Trial Lawyers Association

"The decision to go to mandatory e-filing was one of the best decisions ever made for this Clerk's office. I look forward to adding more case types to our mandatory e-filing requirement in the future and see more counties make the move to court filing thru NYSCEF "

--- Hon Malcolm Merrill Deputy County Clerk, Onondaga County

"The implementation of electronic filing in Westchester County has been a tremendous success.Electronic filing has transformed the way we do business . . The customer eliminates the time and costs associated with getting paper filings to our office, as well as the risk that these paper filings could be misrouted along the way. There is no doubt this is both efficient and cost-effective for our customers we believe strongly the NYSCEF has a bright future and we want nothing more than to be the county where e-.filing is comprehensive and embraced by our customers and partners in the courts "

--- Hon. Timothy C. Idoni Westchester County Clerk

"The benefits of e-filing have been significant . . Electronic filing has certainly been a positive change to our operations E-filing has been successfully integrated, well-accepted and beneficial to all involved,"

--- Hon. Paul Piperato Rockland County Clerk

"Overall, I am pleased that we were one of the first counties to participate voluntarily in e-filing and one of the first mandatory counties and I believe that the users in the Erie County Clerk's Office feel very positive about the system ."

--- Hon. Christopher L. Jacobs Erie County Clerk

"The feedback we received overwhelmingly supports expansion of NYSCEF, not only to more counties statewide, but also to the Appellate Divisions, and the Court of Appeals. In addition to supporting expansion of the e-filing system, the comments indicate support for a uniform filing system, with the various Courts being limited in the amount of customization so the system is consistent state wide."

--- Managing Attorneys and Clerks Association

"Overall, the move towards electronic filing has been positive and we look forward to expanding the breadth of cases which must be filed in this manner "

--- Hon Judith A. Pascale Suffolk County Clerk

"There has been extremely positive feedback, which is indicative of the unquestionable support this initiative has enjoyed . Nassau County looks to add additional case types in the near future . . ."

--- Hon. Maureen O'Connell Nassau County Clerk

"The NYSCEF system . . promotes transparency, accountability and confidence in the court system as litigants, attorneys, parties, judges, court staff and the public, have equal simultaneous and contemporaneous access to all filed documents, unless of course, a court order or law restricts access to a court file or a particular document "

--- Hon. Nancy T. Sunshine Kings County Clerk

"Under current law, a County may implement e-filing on a voluntary basis with the consent of the Clerk and the courts. Mandatory e-filing, however, requires an act of the state legislature. While this requirement was understandable when e-filing was a pilot program, NYSCEF has matured to the point that expansion to a mandatory program should be at the discretion of the courts and the clerk jointly."

"While there are significant monetary savings to the office of the county clerk . perhaps the greatest benefits accrue to the public and the litigants."

--- Hon. Bradford H. Kendall Dutchess County Clerk

"The Niagara County Clerk's office has served as a partner with the New York State Office of Court Administration since the passage of the original e-filing enabling legislation. We are very pleased to have been on the forefront of this major project, and look forward to moving toward a mandatory program in the future "

--- Hon. Wayne F. Jagow Niagara County Clerk

"There is a constant collaboration of efforts between our county and the e-filing resource center to continuously enhance the system. NYSCEF staff is always willing to address any concerns and provide improvements to the system. We look forward to continue working with NYSCEF to expand mandatory electronic filings in all cases types in Queens County."

--- Hon. Audrey I. Pfeffer Queens County Clerk

"E-filing has saved my office a tremendous amount of time and we continue to strongly encourage our local attorneys to take the logical step to e-filing."

--- Hon. Elizabeth Larkin Cortland County Clerk "Electronic filing creates costs savings as attorneys can access these files remotely, the cost savings accorded to law firms is immeasurable They no longer have to send someone to the office for routine matters such as, checking on an order or printing out a simple copy."

--- Hon. Stephen J. Fiala Richmond County Clerk

History of E-Filing in New York

The following will summarize the evolution of e-filing in New York.

L. 1999, c. 367

The State's introduction to e-filing. This measure authorized use of consensual e-filing in Supreme Court in one county in New York City and in one county outside the City, to be selected by the Chief Administrative Judge with the approval of the Administrative Board of the Courts. Under chapter 367, e-filing would be available for the filing of papers in commercial and tax certiorari cases in Supreme Court to commence a case and, as well, for the exchange of legal papers between counsel for the parties in such cases where all have consented to such exchange. Chapter 367 was scheduled to sunset on July 1, 2002, approximately three years after its enactment. In the wake of its enactment, consensual e-filing was authorized for commercial cases in the Commercial Divisions of Supreme Court in Monroe and New York Counties; and for tax certiorari cases in Supreme Court in Westchester County.

L. 2002, c. 110

This measure continued the e-filing programs established by chapter 367 for another year i e , until July 1, 2003. Also, to enable greater experience with e-filing under the programs, the measure expanded the number of venues in which consensual e-filing could be authorized to include commercial claims in the Commercial Divisions of Supreme Court

in Albany, Monroe, Nassau, New York, Suffolk and Westchester Counties; and tax certiorari cases in Supreme Court in Monroe, New York, Suffolk and Westchester Counties, Finally, the measure authorized -- for the first time - use of consensual e-filing in the Court of Claims.

L. 2003, c. 261

This measure continued the e-filing programs established by chapter 367 and modified by chapter 110 for another 26 months - until September 1, 2005.

L. 2004, c. 384

Responding to community requests, this measure expanded the number of venues and classes of cases in which consensual e-filing could be authorized to include commercial claims and tort cases in Supreme Court in Albany, Bronx, Kings, Monroe, Nassau, New York, Queens, Richmond, Suffolk and Westchester Counties; commercial claims in Supreme Court in Erie County; tax certiorari cases in Supreme Court in Bronx, Kings, Monroe, New York, Queens, Richmond, Suffolk and Westchester Counties; and cases in Surrogate's Court in Erie County.

L. 2005 c. 504

This measure continued the e-filing programs established by chapter 367 and subsequently modified for another four years - until September 1, 2009. Again recognizing growing community enthusiasm for e-filing in the courts, this measure further expanded the number of venues and classes of cases in which consensual e-filing could be authorized to include commercial claims, tax certiorari and tort cases in Supreme Court in Albany, Broome, Bronx, Erie, Essex, Kings, Monroe, Nassau, New York, Niagara, Onondaga, Queens, Richmond, Suffolk, Sullivan and Westchester Counties; and all classes of cases in Supreme Court in Broome County. At the same time, it continued authority for e-filing in cases in Surrogate's Court in Erie County.

L. 2007, c. 369

This measure further expanded the number of venues in which consensual e-filing could be authorized in commercial claims, tax certiorari and tort cases in Supreme Court to include Livingston County, along with Albany, Broome, Bronx, Erie, Essex, Kings, Monroe, Nassau, New York, Niagara, Onondaga, Queens, Richmond, Suffolk, Sullivan and Westchester Counties (and all classes of cases in Supreme Court in Broome County) At the same time, it continued authority for e-filing in cases in Surrogate's Court in Erie County and added comparable authority for e-filing in cases in Surrogate's Court in Chautauqua, Monroe, Queens and Suffolk Counties. Finally, it added authority for consensual e-filing in the New York City Civil Court in claims brought by a provider of health services specified in section 502(a)(1) of the Insurance Law against an insurer for failure to comply with Insurance Department rules promulgated pursuant to section 5108(b) of the Insurance Law.

L. 2008, c. 95

This measure authorized the Chief Administrative Judge to permit consensual e-filing in all classes of cases in Supreme Court in Erie County, along with Broome County.

L. 2009, c. 416

Marking the tenth anniversary of New York's experience with consensual e-filing programs, this measure made the authority to permit such programs permanent; and expanded that authority so that it could be used to permit e-filing in in any class of cases in Supreme Court in any county, in Surrogate's Court in any county, in the Court of Claims statewide and in the New York City Civil Court. The measure also, for the first time, enabled the establishment of mandatory e-filing programs, albeit limited to certain categories of commercial claims in New York County, tort cases in Westchester County and one or more classes of cases (excluding matrimonials, Article 78 proceedings, proceedings under the Mental Hygiene Law and Election Law proceedings) in one other county outside New York selected by the Chief Administrative Judge. This authority for mandatory e-filing was made subject to a three-year sunset (September 1, 2012).

L. 2010, c. 528

This measure built upon the changes instituted by chapter 416 of the Laws of the preceding year, especially as they applied to the newly-authorized deployment of mandatory e-filing in civil parts of Supreme Court. Specifically, the measure authorized the Chief Administrative Judge to permit mandatory e-filing in the same categories of commercial claims in Westchester County as it had authorized for such claims in New York County; and replaced authority for the Chief Administrative Judge to permit unrestricted (but for the exceptions created under chapter 416) mandatory e-filing in a single county outside New York with authority to permit such e-filing in the following four counties: Livingston, Monroe, Rockland and Tompkins. The measure also added the requirement that each local county clerk okay institution of mandatory e-filing in his or her county before it can go forth. Finally, the measure imposed a continuing and more detailed annual reporting requirement for the Chief Administrative Judge relating to the operation of e-filing programs.

L. 2011, c. 543

This measure expanded the breadth of mandatory e-filing programs in civil parts of Supreme Court. Specifically, it authorized their establishment in Supreme Courts in New York City in commercial claims without regard to the amount in controversy; and in a broader array of counties that had been authorized by chapter 528 of the Laws of 2010 (adding Allegany, Essex and Onondaga, and permitting mandatory e-filing in all classes of cases (excluding matrimonials, Article 78 proceedings, proceedings under the Mental Hygiene Law and Election Law proceedings) in Westchester). The measure also permitted the Chief Administrative Judge to authorize mandatory e-filing in Surrogate's Court in any county, and in the New York City Civil Court in claims brought by a provider of health services specified in section 502(a)(1) of the Insurance Law against an insurer for failure to comply with Insurance Department rules promulgated pursuant to section 5108(b) of the Insurance Law. Finally, the measure created additional

advisory committees to assist the Chief Administrative Judge in her responsibility to provide the Legislature with continuing evaluations of the State's e-filing programs and to help plan for institution of e-filing in criminal courts and Family Court.

L. 2012, c. 184

This measure further expanded the breadth of mandatory e-filing programs in civil parts of Supreme Court. Specifically, it again added to the array of counties that had been authorized by chapter 528 of the Laws of 2010 (and modified by chapter 543 of the Laws of 2011), this time including Erie and Suffolk Counties. At the same time, it authorized the Chief Administrative Judge to extend mandatory e-filing to any class of cases (with the same exclusions applicable to mandatory e-filing in upstate counties) in Supreme Court in the counties of New York City. Lastly, the measure authorized the Chief Administrative Judge to institute consensual

(and, under limited circumstances, mandatory) e-filing in criminal superior courts and in Family Court

L. 2013, c. 113

This measure once again expanded the breadth of mandatory e-filing programs in civil parts of Supreme Court, adding Nassau County to the array of counties that had been authorized by chapter 528 of the Laws of 2010 (and modified by chapter 543 of the Laws of 2011 and chapter 184 of the Laws of 2012).

{1} Excluded are: matrimonial actions, Election Law proceedings, CPLR Article 70 and 78 proceedings and Mental Hygiene Law proceedings. Also excluded are residential foreclosure actions and consumer credit proceedings to the extent of papers filed therein after the commencement papers have been filed (viz., e-filing may be required for the summons and complaint but not for any later papers in these cases), except that, for two years following the effective date of this measure, counties in which there already is mandatory e-filing of all papers in these cases may continue to observe that practice