Grskovic v. Holmes
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
111 A.D.3d 234 (2013)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
On May 30, 2008, Vinko Grskovic (plaintiff) was involved in a car accident in Westchester County, New York. On March 1, 2011, the Westchester County supreme court began requiring all documents to be electronically filed. On May 4, 2011, Grskovic’s counsel obtained a temporary user account and password for the court’s electronic filing system from the New York State Courts Electronic Filing System (NYCEF). The accompanying email the NYCEF sent Grskovic’s counsel stated that his account was created in “the Practice New York State EFiling System” but did not explain that the word practice referred to a training system rather than to New York practice and procedures. The NYCEF subsequently sent Grskovic’s counsel additional emails, none of which made clear that his account was not for the court’s actual filing system. On May 4, Grskovic’s counsel electronically filed a summons and complaint initiating suit against Marguerite Holmes in the practice system, erroneously believing that he was in the court’s live filing system. Grskovic’s counsel received a confirmation and acknowledgement for his filing. When Grskovic’s counsel did not receive an index number for the new case, his case manager repeatedly inquired with the clerk. On June 2, three days after the May 30 expiration of the statute of limitations, the case manager discovered that the May 4 filing was made in a training system. On June 2, Grskovic moved pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules § 2001 to have the May 4 practice-system filing deemed to have been properly filed on May 4 nunc pro trunc. Per Grskovic, the motion was warranted because the communications with the NYCEF and the clerk misled Grskovic’s counsel into believing that the summons and complaint had been timely filed, counsel acted diligently, and Holmes would not be prejudiced. Holmes opposed the motion, arguing that Grskovic’s counsel was not diligent and that Holmes would be prejudiced because the statute of limitations had expired. The supreme court denied the motion, ruling that, among other things, Holmes would be prejudiced. Grskovic appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dillon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.