Doe v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Doe v. State

11 A.D.3d 579, 783 N.Y.S.2d 391, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12150

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 18, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 11 A.D.3d 579 (Doe v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Doe v. State, 11 A.D.3d 579, 783 N.Y.S.2d 391, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12150 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendant from imposing additional fees pursuant to CPLR 8020, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), entered July 25, 2003, which granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This appeal concerns the validity of the recent amendments [580]*580to CPLR 8020 (a) and (d) imposing fees for the filing of a motion, cross motion, stipulation of settlement, and a voluntary discontinuance (see CPLR 8020 [a], [d]). We reject the plaintiffs’ contention that the challenged amendments are invalid by virtue of the language found in CPLR 8018 (d) (1), a related provision, which provides, in relevant part, that a “county clerk . . . shall charge no further fee in the action to which the index number is assigned . . . [flor the filing, entering, indexing, or docketing ... of any and all papers in the action.”

In light of the rule of statutory construction that “A prior general statute yields to a later specific or special statute” (McKinney’s Cons Law of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 397), CPLR 8018 (d) (1), which is a “general statute,” must yield to the recent specific amendments of CPLR 8020 (a) and (d). Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendant from imposing additional fees pursuant to CPLR 8020, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), entered July 25, 2003, which granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This appeal concerns the validity of the recent amendments [580]*580to CPLR 8020 (a) and (d) imposing fees for the filing of a motion, cross motion, stipulation of settlement, and a voluntary discontinuance (see CPLR 8020 [a], [d]). We reject the plaintiffs’ contention that the challenged amendments are invalid by virtue of the language found in CPLR 8018 (d) (1), a related provision, which provides, in relevant part, that a “county clerk . . . shall charge no further fee in the action to which the index number is assigned . . . [flor the filing, entering, indexing, or docketing ... of any and all papers in the action.”

In light of the rule of statutory construction that “A prior general statute yields to a later specific or special statute” (McKinney’s Cons Law of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 397), CPLR 8018 (d) (1), which is a “general statute,” must yield to the recent specific amendments of CPLR 8020 (a) and (d). Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 579, 783 N.Y.S.2d 391, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-state-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack