Introduction

The Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, issued an unpublished motion decision on January 13, 2025, titled In the Matter of Applications for Extensions of Time (2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 60562). This decision addresses multiple applications filed by various parties seeking extensions of time to perfect or serve and file briefs under the regulations specified in 22 NYCRR 1250.9(b) and (g)(1). The order not only granted the requested extensions but also provides a structured framework for future similar applications, thereby setting a procedural precedent in managing time extensions within the appellate division.

Summary of the Judgment

The court reviewed applications from several parties across multiple causes seeking extensions to meet filing deadlines for briefs. The applications were evaluated based on the criteria stipulated in 22 NYCRR 1250.9(b),(g)(1), which govern the permissible grounds and procedures for requesting extensions. Upon careful consideration, the court granted extensions to all applicants, specifying new deadlines for each case. Additionally, the court outlined the procedures for serving and filing briefs in cases where electronic filing (efiling) is not mandatory, emphasizing compliance with section 1250.1(c) of the Rules of Practice of the Appellate Division.

Extended Deadlines Overview

Title	Docket No.	Applicant Name(s)	Extended Deadline
Baharestani v Baharestani	2024-06642	Steven Baharestani	March 7, 2025
CitiMortgage, Inc. v Lyon	2024-02534	Debbie Lyon	February 6, 2025
Dobbins v Bishop	2024-08137	Wanda Dobbins	March 10, 2025

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment primarily relies on the existing regulatory framework provided by 22 NYCRR 1250.9(b) and (g)(1). These sections delineate the conditions under which extension applications can be considered, including factors such as the reason for delay, the length of the requested extension, and the potential impact on the appellate process. While the opinion does not cite specific case law, it operates within the established procedural guidelines that have been referenced in prior decisions pertaining to filing extensions.

Legal Reasoning

The court's decision to grant extensions hinged on a thorough evaluation of each application's merit against the regulatory standards. Key aspects of the legal reasoning include:

• Compliance with Regulatory Criteria: Each application was assessed for compliance with 22 NYCRR 1250.9(b),(g)(1), ensuring that requests met the necessary procedural prerequisites.
• Justification of Delays: Applicants provided sufficient justification for the delays, whether due to complex case facts, unanticipated legal hurdles, or other extenuating circumstances.
• Minimal Impact on Court Schedule: The extensions granted were deemed not to unduly disrupt the court's schedule or impede the progression of justice in other pending matters.

By adhering strictly to the regulatory standards and evaluating each request on its individual merits, the court maintained procedural integrity while accommodating the legitimate needs of the parties involved.

Impact

This judgment underscores the Supreme Court of New York's commitment to procedural fairness and flexibility. By granting extensions in numerous cases, the court sets a precedent that encourages parties to diligently seek extensions when justified, without fear of automatic denial. This approach is likely to:

• Enhance Judicial Efficiency: Properly managed extensions can prevent rushed filings and subsequent appeals based on procedural errors, thereby streamlining the appellate process.
• Provide Predictability: Clear guidelines and consistent application of extension grants offer predictability for legal practitioners in planning case strategies.
• Maintain Case Quality: Allowing sufficient time for thorough brief preparation ensures higher quality submissions, which can contribute to more informed judicial decisions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

22 NYCRR 1250.9(b),(g)(1)

22 NYCRR 1250.9(b) pertains to the general provisions for granting extensions of time in appellate proceedings. It outlines the circumstances under which a court may permit a party to extend deadlines, emphasizing the need for reasonable cause.

22 NYCRR 1250.9(g)(1) specifically addresses the procedure for applying for extensions related to filing and serving briefs. It stipulates the required documentation, notice to opposing parties, and the factors the court must consider, such as the length of the requested extension and the reasons for the delay.

In essence, these regulations provide a structured mechanism for parties to request additional time in a manner that maintains fairness and efficiency within the appellate system.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of New York's decision in In the Matter of Applications for Extensions of Time serves as a pivotal reference for procedural matters concerning time extensions in appellate cases. By meticulously evaluating each application against established regulatory standards and granting extensions where warranted, the court reinforces the principles of procedural justice and flexibility. This judgment not only addresses the immediate needs of the parties involved but also contributes to the broader legal landscape by setting a clear precedent for future extension applications. Legal practitioners can anticipate a balanced approach that accommodates legitimate requests without compromising the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process.