I'm sure you have notice that I haven't been posting with my normal fury. That didn't sound right, maybe "furiously posting?" Nevermind. I just haven't been posting as often as I used to. There are a couple of reasons. First, I have a lot of work to do. Real work, not blogging. Second, I have a lot of blogging to do. Third, my computer has gone batshit crazy and I need a new one, but I can't buy one at the moment. Unless. Unless, one of you readers wants to donate a sweet new computer. No garbage. I'm picky. Needs to be a Mac. I'm sure one of you has an extra few thousand dollars lying around.
That said, here is a funny case about page limits.
22 NYCRR 9.1 Filing of rules and regulations required
Macias v City of Yonkers, 2009 NY Slip Op 06811 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)
In this action to recover damages for personal injuries, the
defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3126, on the basis of the plaintiffs'
failure to comply with its discovery demands and discovery orders, to
dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, to preclude the
plaintiffs from offering any testimony with regard to the infant
plaintiff's alleged injuries or medical treatment. The Supreme Court
refused to consider those portions of the defendant's supporting
affidavit that exceeded the court's page limit, and denied the motion
as unsupported. The defendant then moved for leave to reargue and renew
its motion pursuant to CPLR 3126. The Supreme Court denied leave to
renew, granted leave to reargue, and, upon reargument, adhered to the
Courts operating under the individual assignment system are authorized to establish rules for the proceedings before them (see
22 NYCRR 9.1). Those rules, however, and the procedures by which they
are enforced, must be reasonable. As the rules of this Court
demonstrate, page limits on submissions are appropriate (see 22 NYCRR 670.10.3[a]), as is the rejection of papers that fail to comply with those limits (see 22 NYCRR 670.10.1[f]). It is not reasonable, however, for a court to accept [*2]papers
that do not comply with the court's page limitation and then refuse to
read the noncompliant pages, denying, as a consequence, substantive
relief that may be warranted. Having accepted the defendant's
supporting papers, the Supreme Court should have considered the entire
affidavit submitted in support of the defendant's motion, inter alia,
to dismiss the complaint. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the
Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new determination on the
merits of the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3126.
Reject it all or accept it all.