Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Survey Reports Problems with Filing New Fees

By Leigh Jones
December 01, 2003

Cries from practitioners balking at last summer's increase in filing fees appear to have intensified as complaints mount about problems with the collection of those fees. The New York State Bar Association is expected to release the results of a survey to the Office of Court Administration this week, which State Bar President A. Thomas Levin said identifies several criticisms with the new state Supreme Court fees required for filing motions, cross motions and stipulations of settlement and discontinuance.

The survey, which he said was sent to about 13,000 practitioners and generated about 350 responses, asked attorneys across the state what kinds of experiences they were having with the charges implemented in July, and how the collection of those fees should be administered. Levin said many of the responses indicated that attorneys were still bristling from the rise in fees, which went up in several areas. The increase, initiated in part to defray the costs of assigned counsel for indigent clients, included three new charges: a $45 fee for all motions and cross motions, a $35 charge for filing a stipulation of settlement, and a $35 fee for submitting a voluntary discontinuance. Other filing fees also rose.

“They're still mad that they have to pay more in the first place,” Levin said. But the problem apparently is not just money. Many responses indicated logistics problems associated with paying motion fees, he said. In suburban and upstate areas, county clerk's offices, where the fees are paid, often are located separately from Supreme Court motion support, where motions are usually filed. Apparently, there are some rough spots with coordinating those offices.

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.