Grskovic v. Holmes

111 A.D.3d 234 (2013)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Grskovic v. Holmes

New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
111 A.D.3d 234 (2013)

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…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership