New York calls the opening paper a summons and complaint (or summons with notice). Self-represented parties file in Supreme Court (County / Civil / District Courts and NYC Civil Court for many claims). Individuals may appear pro se. Corporations generally must appear by New York counsel (limited small-claims exceptions for certain authorized employees). That is what separates New York filing a lawsuit without a lawyer from a generic national summary. Read CPLR (Civil Practice Law and Rules); Uniform Civil Rules before the background sections below. E-filing: NYSCEF (New York State Courts Electronic Filing). Many Supreme Court counties mandate or permit NYSCEF for self-represented parties. NYC Civil Court and small claims have separate e-filing/paper rules — check the local court. Service: CPLR Article 3. Small claims: small-claims parts (e.g., NYC Civil Court Small Claims; town/village justice courts) (commonly up to $10,000 in NYC Civil Court Small Claims (confirm local)).
What is a statute, case, rule, and regulation?
Self-represented litigants lose cases when they confuse sources of law. Use these definitions when you research on LawDiver:
| Source | What it is | How you use it in New York |
|---|---|---|
| Statute | A law enacted by the legislature (or Congress) | Creates rights, duties, damages caps, notice periods, and causes of action |
| Case (opinion) | A written decision of a court resolving a dispute | Interprets statutes and rules; binds lower courts in the same hierarchy when it is controlling precedent |
| Court rule | A procedural regulation adopted by the judiciary | Tells you how to plead, serve, discover, and try a case — e.g. CPLR (Civil Practice Law and Rules); Uniform Civil Rules |
| Regulation | A rule issued by an executive agency under statutory authority | Matters when your claim involves licensed industries, benefits, or administrative prerequisites |
| Local rule / administrative order | County- or court-specific filing practice | Often controls e-filing mandates, cover sheets, and hearing calendars |
A winning New York theory usually needs all three of: (1) a substantive statute or common-law claim, (2) a pleading that satisfies the civil rules, and (3) admissible evidence under the New York evidence law (CPLR Article 45 and case law).
Can you litigate pro se in New York?
Individuals may appear pro se. Corporations generally must appear by New York counsel (limited small-claims exceptions for certain authorized employees).
Pro se (sometimes in propria persona or self-represented) means you speak for yourself. Courts often construe pro se papers liberally on formatting, but they do not invent claims you failed to plead, excuse missed statutes of limitation, or waive service defects. If a corporation is on the other side with counsel, you will still be held to the CPLR (Civil Practice Law and Rules); Uniform Civil Rules.
NYCourts DIY Forms and Court Help centers publish summons, complaint, and small-claims packets.
New York opinions on pro se practice
In the Matter of Jason Grant v. Daniel Senkowski, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility
…or mailing to the appropriate court. Petitioner, proceeding pro se, submitted his proposed order to show cause, petition and request for poor person relief to prison authorities on Wednesday, October 21, 1998, five days before the applicable Statute of Limitations period expired (see, CPLR 217 [1]). Because he requested that the papers be sent by certified mail, petitioner also…
Practitioners open In the Matter of Jason Grant v. Daniel Senkowski, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility when New York pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Petitioner, proceeding pro se, submitted his proposed order to show cause, petition and request for poor person relief to prison authorities on Wednesday, October 21, 1998, five days before the applicable Statute of Limitations period expired (see, CPLR 217 [1])." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Stephen P. Duffen v. State of New York
Stephen P. Duffen v. State of New York, 245 A.D.2d 653 (1997)
…reatment. Notably, the Court of Claims concluded that, as a pro se litigant, claimant could not be expected to obtain expert testimony with the same skill as counsel and also that, as an employee of the State directly involved in the incident, Lee “may naturally have wanted to minimize the effect of the lack of medication”. Accordingly, the Court of Claims held that Lee’s testi…
New York opinions such as Stephen P. Duffen v. State of New York are cited where pro se is disputed. The court stated: "State directly involved in the incident, Lee “may naturally have wanted to minimize the effect of the lack of medication”." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Smith, Appellant
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Smith, Appellant, 68 N.Y.2d 737 (1986)
…defendant in a criminal case may invoke the right to defend pro se provided: (1) the request is unequivocal and timely asserted, (2) there has been a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right of counsel, and (3) the defendant has not engaged in conduct which would prevent the fair and orderly exposition of the issues" (People v McIntyre, 36 N.Y.2d 10, 17; see, Faretta v Calif…
Practitioners open The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Smith, Appellant when New York pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "defendant in a criminal case may invoke the right to defend pro se provided: (1) the request is unequivocal and timely asserted, (2) there has been a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right of counsel, and (3) the defendant has not engaged in conduct which would prevent the f" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Parker 72nd Associates v. Leigh R. Isaacs
Parker 72nd Associates v. Leigh R. Isaacs, 109 Misc. 2d 57 (1980)
…a failure to provide heat and hot water. Additionally, the pro se respondent, an attorney, has requested counsel fees. WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY The claim for an abatement of rent is based upon the warranty of habitability as set forth in section 235-b of the Real Property Law. It is clear that failure to provide heat or hot water as required by law is a danger to life, health…
New York opinions such as Parker 72nd Associates v. Leigh R. Isaacs are cited where pro se is disputed. The court stated: "Additionally, the pro se respondent, an attorney, has requested counsel fees. WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY The claim for an abatement of rent is based upon the warranty of habitability as set forth in section 235-b of the Real Property Law." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Joan M. Davis v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company
Joan M. Davis v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, 167 A.D.2d 714 (1990)
…r attorney and plaintiff finally brought the case to trial, pro se, on July 6, 1988. At trial, it is apparent from the record that plaintiff’s inexperience and lack of legal training prevented her from *715making a reasonable presentation of the evidence and she was clearly confused as to issues such as which party bore the burden of proof. Nevertheless, early in the proceeding…
Joan M. Davis v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company is worth reading on New York pro se because the court put the point in its own words: "July 6, 1988. At trial, it is apparent from the record that plaintiff’s inexperience and lack of legal training prevented her from *715making a reasonable presentation of the evidence and she was clearly confused as to issues such as which party bore the burden of proof." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Henry Traktman v. City of New York
Henry Traktman v. City of New York, 182 A.D.2d 814 (1992)
…CPLR 321 (a), which prohibits a corporation from appearing pro se. We find that the statutory prohibition does not extend to an assignee of a corporation, despite the fact that the assignment may have been made to circumvent the statutory prohibition against a corporation appearing pro se (see, Medical Facilities v Pryke, 172 AD2d 338; Kamp v In Sportswear, 39 AD2d 869, revg 7…
Practitioners open Henry Traktman v. City of New York when New York pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "CPLR 321 (a), which prohibits a corporation from appearing pro se." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Marcus Telesford v. Raymond W. Patterson, as FOIL Appeal Officer, Civilian Complaint Review Board
…eding, not to the CCRB. On or about May 7, 2003, petitioner pro se commenced the instant proceeding seeking disclosure of the tape. He again made reference to Justice Barros’s direction to the District Attorney and asserted the tape was never turned over. Respondent cross-moved to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action, arguing that the officer’s records ar…
On pro se, Marcus Telesford v. Raymond W. Patterson, as FOIL Appeal Officer, Civilian Complaint Review Board speaks to the New York dispute in this passage: "CCRB. On or about May 7, 2003, petitioner pro se commenced the instant proceeding seeking disclosure of the tape. He again made reference to Justice Barros’s direction to the District Attorney and asserted the tape was never turned over." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Chrysler Credit Corporation v. Bennet Smith
Chrysler Credit Corporation v. Bennet Smith, 157 Misc. 2d 56 (1993)
…ly due. On the return day of the motion defendant appearing pro se orally opposed the motion alleging that the vehicle had been stolen and that plaintiff had failed to offer him a replacement vehicle under such terms as provided by the lease. Thus it was defendant’s position that it was plaintiff who was in default of the lease. The dilemma created by these allegations was that…
New York opinions such as Chrysler Credit Corporation v. Bennet Smith are cited where pro se is disputed. The court stated: "On the return day of the motion defendant appearing pro se orally opposed the motion alleging that the vehicle had been stolen and that plaintiff had failed to offer him a replacement vehicle under such terms as provided by the lease." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Role of the judge and the jury
- The judge decides questions of law: what the statute means, whether a pleading states a claim, which evidence is admissible, and how the jury (if any) is instructed. In bench trials and most small-claims matters, the judge also finds the facts.
- The jury decides disputed questions of fact in jury-eligible civil cases when a timely demand is made and any jury fee is paid.
- Demand a jury under CPLR 4102 for eligible claims; note waiver risks. Small claims are typically non-jury.
Practical tip: decide before filing whether you want a jury. Late demands are often waived. Small-claims paths (small-claims parts (e.g., NYC Civil Court Small Claims; town/village justice courts)) usually trade speed for no jury and limited discovery.
A concrete New York scenario
Here is one way the New York pieces fit together. Change any fact and the statute may point somewhere else.
A person in New York wants to sue without a lawyer and has not yet filed anything.
- Confirm you may appear without counsel: Individuals may appear pro se. Corporations generally must appear by New York counsel (limited small-claims exceptions for certain authorized employees).
- Draft a summons and complaint (or summons with notice) and file it in Supreme Court (County / Civil / District Courts and NYC Civil Court for many claims). E-filing: Many Supreme Court counties mandate or permit NYSCEF for self-represented parties. NYC Civil Court and small claims have separate e-filing/paper rules — check the local court.
- Serve under CPLR Article 3. Serve the summons and complaint under CPLR 308 (natural persons) or 311 (corporations) — personal delivery, deliver-and-mail, or other statutory methods. File proof of service within the required time.
- Expect discovery under CPLR Article 31 governs disclosure (discovery). Preliminary conferences in Supreme Court set disclosure schedules. A jury demand follows Demand a jury under CPLR 4102 for eligible claims; note waiver risks. Small claims are typically non-jury.
Missing service or a limitations deadline is not excused because the filer is pro se in New York. The evidence companion is the New York evidence guide.
Pleadings: complaint, answer, and motions
Pleadings are the formal papers that frame the lawsuit. In New York the plaintiff's opening paper is typically a summons and complaint (or summons with notice). It should:
- Identify the parties and the court (Supreme Court (County / Civil / District Courts and NYC Civil Court for many claims) or the small-claims forum).
- Allege facts that, if true, entitle you to relief under a recognized claim.
- Demand judgment (money, injunction, declaratory relief, or other remedies the court can grant).
- Include a jury demand if you want one and the claim is jury-triable.
The defendant responds with an answer (admissions, denials, affirmative defenses) and/or a motion to dismiss challenging legal sufficiency, jurisdiction, or service. Later motions (compel discovery, summary judgment, limine) are usually not “pleadings” in the technical sense, but they drive most civil cases.
New York pleadings opinions
Elma Penato v. Stephen George
Elma Penato v. Stephen George, 52 A.D.2d 939 (1976)
…er son, and Eastchester Associates, Inc. That corporation’s motion to dismiss the complaint was deemed to be one for summary judgment, and the motion was granted. With respect to the other defendants, Special Term noted that since the parties had proceeded by offering matter extrinsic to the bare pleadings, it "need not assume the truthfulness of the pleaded allegations, but ha…
Practitioners open Elma Penato v. Stephen George when New York pleadings turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Eastchester Associates, Inc. That corporation’s motion to dismiss the complaint was deemed to be one for summary judgment, and the motion was granted." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Patricia Meyer v. Mary A. Guinta
Patricia Meyer v. Mary A. Guinta, 262 A.D.2d 463 (1999)
…Ward v Bennett, 214 AD2d 741, 743). However, Peter Guinta’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action should have been granted by the Supreme Court. It is well settled that bare legal conclusions and factual claims which are flatly contradicted by the evidence are not presumed to be true on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. When the movi…
Practitioners open Patricia Meyer v. Mary A. Guinta when New York pleadings turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Ward v Bennett, 214 AD2d 741, 743). However, Peter Guinta’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action should have been granted by the Supreme Court." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
In the Matter of Supplementary Proceedings by Samuel W. Ehrich, Judgment Creditor v. Henry A. Root, Judgment Debtor
…ty he has and where it is. The respondents made an original motion to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the appellant is not aggrieved by the order and, therefore, was without authority to take the appeal under section 1294 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which limits the right of appeal to “ a party aggrieved.” Many cases are cited tending to show that a party who is not…
On pleadings, In the Matter of Supplementary Proceedings by Samuel W. Ehrich, Judgment Creditor v. Henry A. Root, Judgment Debtor speaks to the New York dispute in this passage: "Code of Civil Procedure, which limits the right of appeal to “ a party aggrieved." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Matter of the Summary Proceeding Brought by The Stuyvesant Real Estate Co., Landlord, on the Petition of Frederick
…ssued in this proceeding the attorney for the tenant made a motion to dismiss the landlord’s petition herein on the ground that said petition was not verified by an officer of the company, which is a domestic corporation, as required under sections 2235 and 525 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This motion was granted, and from the order dismissing the proceeding, this appeal is…
On pleadings, Matter of the Summary Proceeding Brought by The Stuyvesant Real Estate Co., Landlord, on the Petition of Frederick speaks to the New York dispute in this passage: "ssued in this proceeding the attorney for the tenant made a motion to dismiss the landlord’s petition herein on the ground that said petition was not verified by an officer of the company, which is a domestic corporation, as required under sections 2235 and 525 of the Code of Civ" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
850 Third Ave. Owner, LLC v. Discovery Communications, LLC
850 Third Ave. Owner, LLC v. Discovery Communications, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 03171 (2022)
…on its claims, we likewise affirm the denial of plaintiff's motion to dismiss those counterclaims. With respect to the eighth [*2]counterclaim (for costs and expenses pursuant to section 26.02 of the lease), the prevailing party has yet to be identified. The second and third counterclaims seek declarations. "[I]n declaratory judgment actions . . . on a motion to dismiss the com…
850 Third Ave. Owner, LLC v. Discovery Communications, LLC is worth reading on New York pleadings because the court put the point in its own words: "With respect to the eighth [*2]counterclaim (for costs and expenses pursuant to section 26.02 of the lease), the prevailing party has yet to be identified. The second and third counterclaims seek declarations. '[I]n declaratory judgment actions . . ." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Tina Turner Musical LLC v. Chubb Ins. Co. of Europe SE
Tina Turner Musical LLC v. Chubb Ins. Co. of Europe SE, 2022 NY Slip Op 06896 (2022)
…red on or about December 30, 2021, which denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The court correctly concluded that plaintiff's losses resulting from the cancellation of its Broadway show during the COVID-19 pandemic did not fall within the communicable disease exclusion in the insurance policy. The exclusion precluded from coverage…
On pleadings, Tina Turner Musical LLC v. Chubb Ins. Co. of Europe SE speaks to the New York dispute in this passage: "December 30, 2021, which denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
How to file and serve in New York
Filing
- Choose the correct forum: Supreme Court (County / Civil / District Courts and NYC Civil Court for many claims) for larger or complex civil cases; small-claims parts (e.g., NYC Civil Court Small Claims; town/village justice courts) when your claim fits commonly up to $10,000 in NYC Civil Court Small Claims (confirm local).
- Prepare the summons and complaint (or summons with notice) (and any required cover sheet, civil case information statement, or summons).
- Pay the filing fee or apply for a fee waiver / indigency finding as New York practice allows.
- Obtain a signed summons (or local equivalent) from the clerk after the case is opened.
Governing procedure: CPLR (Civil Practice Law and Rules); Uniform Civil Rules.
Service of process
Filing alone does not start the clock against the defendant in a meaningful way — service does. Authority: CPLR Article 3.
Serve the summons and complaint under CPLR 308 (natural persons) or 311 (corporations) — personal delivery, deliver-and-mail, or other statutory methods. File proof of service within the required time.
Defective service is one of the most common reasons pro se cases are dismissed without prejudice (or worse, delayed until limitations problems appear). Keep copies of every affidavit or return.
New York service opinions
Estate of Edward S. Waterman v. Andrew P. Jones
Estate of Edward S. Waterman v. Andrew P. Jones, 46 A.D.3d 63 (2007)
…d mail” service pursuant to CPLR 308 (4). We hold that such service of process did not confer personal jurisdiction over the defendant attorney in this legal malpractice action. The following facts are undisputed. On June 17, 2004, the plaintiff, Estate of Edward S. Waterman, commenced the instant action sounding in legal malpractice to recover damages allegedly caused by proba…
Practitioners open Estate of Edward S. Waterman v. Andrew P. Jones when New York service of process turns on the distinction in this sentence: "CPLR 308 (4). We hold that such service of process did not confer personal jurisdiction over the defendant attorney in this legal malpractice action. The following facts are undisputed. On June 17, 2004, the plaintiff, Estate of Edward S." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Anna Raschel, Also Known as Anna M. Raschel v. Benito Rish
Anna Raschel, Also Known as Anna M. Raschel v. Benito Rish, 69 N.Y.2d 694 (1986)
…er motion for leave to appeal. On the issue of the original service of process on the doctor, the Appellate Division correctly affirmed dismissal of the complaint. While the CPLR is silent as to the number of copies of a summons and complaint that must be served on a person conceivably acting in more than one representative capacity, the guiding principle must be one of notice…
New York opinions such as Anna Raschel, Also Known as Anna M. Raschel v. Benito Rish are cited where service of process is disputed. The court stated: "On the issue of the original service of process on the doctor, the Appellate Division correctly affirmed dismissal of the complaint." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Washington Mutual Bank, Formerly Known as Washington Mutual Bank, FA, Respondent, v. Edward Murphy, Appellant, and
…house. He also stated that, on May 26, 2007, the date that service of process was allegedly effectuated, the Noyack property was not his actual place of business, place of residence, dwelling place, or place of abode. According to Murphy, since March 2003, the plaintiff had always sent him correspondence regarding the Noyack property to the Reade Street address, and all other…
Practitioners open Washington Mutual Bank, Formerly Known as Washington Mutual Bank, FA, Respondent, v. Edward Murphy, Appellant, and when New York service of process turns on the distinction in this sentence: "He also stated that, on May 26, 2007, the date that service of process was allegedly effectuated, the Noyack property was not his actual place of business, place of residence, dwelling place, or place of abode." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Helen Krisilas v. Mount Sinai Hospital, and Damien Kim
Helen Krisilas v. Mount Sinai Hospital, and Damien Kim, 63 A.D.3d 887 (2009)
…2008, which, after a hearing to determine the propriety of service of process, granted the motion of the defendant Damien Kim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint and cross *888claim insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction, and (2) a judgment of the same court entered February 25, 2008, which, upon the order, dismissed the complaint…
Practitioners open Helen Krisilas v. Mount Sinai Hospital, and Damien Kim when New York service of process turns on the distinction in this sentence: "2008, which, after a hearing to determine the propriety of service of process, granted the motion of the defendant Damien Kim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint and cross *888claim insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction, and (2) a ju" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Chester Broman, as Trustees of Local 282 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Welfare, Pension and Annuity Trust
…personal jurisdiction (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [8]). In general, service of process is valid only when it is accomplished in some method permitted by the CPLR (see, *476Macchia v Russo, 67 NY2d 592, 595; Markoff v South Nassau Community Hosp., 61 NY2d 283, 288; Feinstein v Bergner, 48 NY2d 234, 241; McDonald v Ames Supply Co., 22 NY2d 111, 115-116; Cooney v East Nassau Med. Group, 1…
Chester Broman, as Trustees of Local 282 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Welfare, Pension and Annuity Trust is worth reading on New York service of process because the court put the point in its own words: "CPLR 3211 [a] [8]). In general, service of process is valid only when it is accomplished in some method permitted by the CPLR (see, *476Macchia v Russo, 67 NY2d 592, 595; Markoff v South Nassau Community Hosp." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Tadeusz Orzechowski v. Warner-Lambert Company, and Bonnot Company, (Action No. 1.) Carmen Gonzalez, Individually and
…d permitted the plaintiffs to correct irregularities in the service of process nunc pro tunc and (2) in Action No. 1 from a further order of the same court, dated July 2, 1981, which, in effect, denied a similar motion by Bonnot and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to permit them to correct irregularities in the service of process nunc pro tunc. Orders affirmed, with one bill o…
New York opinions such as Tadeusz Orzechowski v. Warner-Lambert Company, and Bonnot Company, (Action No. 1.) Carmen Gonzalez, Individually and are cited where service of process is disputed. The court stated: "Action No. 1 from a further order of the same court, dated July 2, 1981, which, in effect, denied a similar motion by Bonnot and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to permit them to correct irregularities in the service of process nunc pro tunc." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Tina Freud v. St. Agnes Cathedral School
Tina Freud v. St. Agnes Cathedral School, 64 A.D.3d 678 (2009)
…, 2008, which, after a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. *679Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. It is undisputed that on August 27, 2007 the plaintiffs process server visited the defendant’s school and delivered the summons…
On service of process, Tina Freud v. St. Agnes Cathedral School speaks to the New York dispute in this passage: "CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. *679Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Charles Spangenberg v. William Chaloupka
Charles Spangenberg v. William Chaloupka, 229 A.D.2d 482 (1996)
…95, which, after a hearing to determine the validity of the service of process, granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint based on lack of jurisdiction. *483Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated. In this action the plaintiffs attempted to serve the defendant by "affix and mail”…
Practitioners open Charles Spangenberg v. William Chaloupka when New York service of process turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Registering for e-filing
New York's primary electronic filing path is NYSCEF (New York State Courts Electronic Filing).
How to register: Create a NYSCEF unrepresented-user account, complete identity verification, and pay filing fees or seek a poor-person order (CPLR 1101).
Pro se reality check: Many Supreme Court counties mandate or permit NYSCEF for self-represented parties. NYC Civil Court and small claims have separate e-filing/paper rules — check the local court.
When you e-file:
- Use PDF/A or the portal's accepted formats; flatten forms before upload.
- Check that party names match the caption exactly.
- Calendar the clerk's acceptance email — a rejected filing is often treated as unfiled.
- Serve other parties under the rules (e-service through the portal may not replace initial service of process).
Discovery
After pleadings, parties exchange information. In New York:
CPLR Article 31 governs disclosure (discovery). Preliminary conferences in Supreme Court set disclosure schedules.
Typical tools:
- Interrogatories — written questions answered under oath.
- Requests for production — documents, ESI, and tangible things.
- Requests for admission — force yes/no authenticity or fact stipulations.
- Depositions — live testimony under oath (expensive; plan carefully if you are self-represented).
If the other side stonewalls, a motion to compel and, later, sanctions motions are the enforcement path. Courts expect meet-and-confer first in most jurisdictions.
New York discovery opinions
Dyer Trust 2012-1, Respondent, v. Global World Realty, Inc., Et Al., Appellants, Et Al., Defendants
…erted against them, and denied their cross motion to compel discovery. Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Global World Realty, Inc., and guaranteed by the defendants Harón Zubli and Daniel Joory (hereinafter collectively the Global de…
Practitioners open Dyer Trust 2012-1, Respondent, v. Global World Realty, Inc., Et Al., Appellants, Et Al., Defendants when New York discovery turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Global World Realty, Inc." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Antonio Andon, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Prudencia Andon v. 302-304 Mott Street Associates
…hat the mental or physical condition of the party from whom discovery is sought is “in controversy.” (Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 287.) Only then may discovery proceed under the statute. *40(Supra, at 287.) Defendants have failed to satisfy this burden. Plaintiff mother has asserted no claim for personal injuries of her own. Accordingly, the mother has not placed her mental…
Antonio Andon, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Prudencia Andon v. 302-304 Mott Street Associates is worth reading on New York discovery because the court put the point in its own words: "Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 287.) Only then may discovery proceed under the statute. *40(Supra, at 287.) Defendants have failed to satisfy this burden. Plaintiff mother has asserted no claim for personal injuries of her own." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Arthur Salm v. Neil Feldstein
Arthur Salm v. Neil Feldstein, 20 A.D.3d 469 (2005)
…issing the complaint and denying his cross motion to compel discovery, dismissed the complaint. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied as premature, the cross motion is granted, the complaint is reinstated, and the order is vacated. The plaintiff and the defendant were the members of World Wide Automotive, LLC (hereinafter the compan…
Practitioners open Arthur Salm v. Neil Feldstein when New York discovery turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied as premature, the cross motion is granted, the complaint is reinstated, and the order is vacated." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Preferred Equities Corporation v. Aaron Ziegelman
Preferred Equities Corporation v. Aaron Ziegelman, 190 A.D.2d 659 (1993)
…dants on the instant motion and on a prior motion to compel discovery, which resulted in an order of the same court dated January 2, 1991, and (2) granted the defendants an additional 10 days to serve properly formulated responses to interrogatories. Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by granting the branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to impose reasonable a…
On discovery, Preferred Equities Corporation v. Aaron Ziegelman speaks to the New York dispute in this passage: "January 2, 1991, and (2) granted the defendants an additional 10 days to serve properly formulated responses to interrogatories." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Susanne O'Hara v. New York City Transit Authority
Susanne O'Hara v. New York City Transit Authority, 248 A.D.2d 138 (1998)
…and sub silentio denied plaintiffs’ cross-motion to compel discovery, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, the complaint reinstated and the matter remanded for a determination of plaintiffs’ cross-motion to compel compliance with their notice for discovery and inspection. Order, same court and Justice, entered February 29, 1996, which, inter alia…
Practitioners open Susanne O'Hara v. New York City Transit Authority when New York discovery turns on the distinction in this sentence: "and sub silentio denied plaintiffs’ cross-motion to compel discovery, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, the complaint reinstated and the matter remanded for a determination of plaintiffs’ cross-motion to compel compliance with their notice for di" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Anthony Sullivan v. Brooklyn-Caledonian Hospital
Anthony Sullivan v. Brooklyn-Caledonian Hospital, 213 A.D.2d 474 (1995)
…n to vacate its default and (b) denied his motion to compel discovery and inspection and granted the defendant’s cross motion for a protective order vacating his notice of discovery and inspection, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated September 27, 1993, as (a) denied the branch of his motion which was, in effect, for reargument of his motion for a default judgm…
Anthony Sullivan v. Brooklyn-Caledonian Hospital is worth reading on New York discovery because the court put the point in its own words: "n to vacate its default and (b) denied his motion to compel discovery and inspection and granted the defendant’s cross motion for a protective order vacating his notice of discovery and inspection, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated September 27, 1993, as (a) de" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Lou Messina v. Roy Lippman
Lou Messina v. Roy Lippman, 55 Misc. 3d 1 (2016)
…ting so much thereof as denied defendant’s motion to compel discovery; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new determination of defendant’s motion to compel discovery in accordance with the decision herein. In this action to recover damages for defamation, the endorsed complaint failed to specify the allegedl…
Practitioners open Lou Messina v. Roy Lippman when New York discovery turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Civil Court for a new determination of defendant’s motion to compel discovery in accordance with the decision herein." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Klein v. New York City Tr. Auth.
Klein v. New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 00250 (2022)
…k City Transit Authority (NYCTA) to comply with outstanding discovery demands, directed the parties to discuss in good faith any remaining discovery issues and to appear for a further remote virtual status conference at which any remaining discovery would be discussed, unanimously affirmed, without costs. We reject NYCTA's argument that we should dismiss plaintiff's appeal as m…
New York opinions such as Klein v. New York City Tr. Auth. are cited where discovery is disputed. The court stated: "NYCTA) to comply with outstanding discovery demands, directed the parties to discuss in good faith any remaining discovery issues and to appear for a further remote virtual status conference at which any remaining discovery would be discussed, unanimously affirmed, without costs." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Rules of evidence (short tour)
Trials and many motion hearings are decided on admissible evidence, not on what you know happened. New York applies the New York evidence law (CPLR Article 45 and case law). Core ideas:
- Relevance — does the proof make a fact of consequence more or less probable?
- Authenticity — is the exhibit what you claim it is?
- Hearsay — is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth, and if so, does an exception apply?
- Privileges — attorney-client, spousal, and other privileges can block inquiry even when the facts are relevant.
For a full New York walkthrough of hearsay, business records, authenticity, and depositions at trial, read the companion guide: New York Evidence Law: Admissibility, Hearsay, and Authenticity.
Summary judgment and other dispositive motions
Many civil cases never reach a jury. A party may move for summary judgment by showing there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pro se litigants lose these motions when they respond with argument instead of affidavits, authenticated exhibits, and pinpoint record citations.
New York summary-judgment opinions
Alvord and Swift, Appellant, v. Stewart M. Muller Construction Company, Inc., Et Al., Defendants, and New York
…cts. From two separate orders at Special Term, one granting summary judgment under CPLR 3212 to New York Telephone and the other under CPLR 3211 dismissing two causes of action against the architects, plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Division. That court affirmed, and plaintiff again appeals. The issues have been extensively treated in two opinions by Mr. Justice EDWARD J. G…
Practitioners open Alvord and Swift, Appellant, v. Stewart M. Muller Construction Company, Inc., Et Al., Defendants, and New York when New York summary judgment turns on the distinction in this sentence: "From two separate orders at Special Term, one granting summary judgment under CPLR 3212 to New York Telephone and the other under CPLR 3211 dismissing two causes of action against the architects, plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Division." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Tetla Roques v. David H. Noble, M.D.
Tetla Roques v. David H. Noble, M.D., 73 A.D.3d 204 (2010)
…ent and ultimately causing his death. Defendants* moved for summary judgment solely on the cause of action for wrongful death, and the trial court granted defendants’ motions finding that plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact with respect to whether the malpractice alleged caused decedent’s death. We now reverse. In support of their motion, defendants Kamran Tabaddor, M.D.…
Tetla Roques v. David H. Noble, M.D. is worth reading on New York summary judgment because the court put the point in its own words: "Defendants* moved for summary judgment solely on the cause of action for wrongful death, and the trial court granted defendants’ motions finding that plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact with respect to whether the malpractice alleged caused decedent’s death. We now reverse." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Walley Richards v. Leroy Tyson
Walley Richards v. Leroy Tyson, 64 A.D.3d 760 (2009)
…, J.), dated March 5, 2008, which denied his *761motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that none of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that none of t…
On summary judgment, Walley Richards v. Leroy Tyson speaks to the New York dispute in this passage: "J.), dated March 5, 2008, which denied his *761motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that none of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d)." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Akousa Phillips, Individually and as Mother and Natural Guardian of Ernestina Frorwaa, an Infant v. Bronx Lebanon
…there was notice of same” and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendants’ motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants-appellants dismissing the complaint. It is undisputed that plaintiff, who was carrying her two-year-old daugh…
New York opinions such as Akousa Phillips, Individually and as Mother and Natural Guardian of Ernestina Frorwaa, an Infant v. Bronx Lebanon are cited where summary judgment is disputed. The court stated: "The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants-appellants dismissing the complaint." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Mario F. Cajas-Romero v. Irving K. Ward
Mario F. Cajas-Romero v. Irving K. Ward, 106 A.D.3d 850 (2013)
…J.), dated October 11, 2011, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, without prejudice to renewal after the completion of discovery. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted. The plaintiffs allegedly were injured when the defendant’s motor v…
Mario F. Cajas-Romero v. Irving K. Ward is worth reading on New York summary judgment because the court put the point in its own words: "J.), dated October 11, 2011, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, without prejudice to renewal after the completion of discovery." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Rafael Garcia v. J. C. Duggan, Inc.
Rafael Garcia v. J. C. Duggan, Inc., 180 A.D.2d 579 (1992)
…on December 19, 1990, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs’ cross-motion for costs and sanctions for defendant’s making of a frivolous and harassing motion, is unanimously modified on the law to the extent of denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment and otherwise affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Plai…
On summary judgment, Rafael Garcia v. J. C. Duggan, Inc. speaks to the New York dispute in this passage: "on December 19, 1990, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs’ cross-motion for costs and sanctions for defendant’s making of a frivolous and harassing motion, is unanimously modified on the law to the extent of denying" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Evelyn Kornfeld Et Al., Respondents, v. NRX Technologies, Inc., Defendant, and Robert Anderson Et Al., Appellants
…sts. Respondents commenced this action by way of motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint to recover $500,000 under notes issued by the corporate defendant, NRX Technologies, Inc., and unconditionally guaranteed in writing by the individual defendant-appellants, Robert Anderson (chairman of the board and director of NRX), Joseph Tribble (president and director) and Jose…
Practitioners open Evelyn Kornfeld Et Al., Respondents, v. NRX Technologies, Inc., Defendant, and Robert Anderson Et Al., Appellants when New York summary judgment turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Respondents commenced this action by way of motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint to recover $500,000 under notes issued by the corporate defendant, NRX Technologies, Inc." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Margie C. Zoldas v. Louise Cab Corporation
Margie C. Zoldas v. Louise Cab Corporation, 108 A.D.2d 378 (1985)
…livan, J. This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to meet the threshold requirement of a “serious injury” as defined by the No-Fault Law (Insurance Law § 671 [4]). On May 28,1978, at about 7:15 a.m., plaintiff was a passenger in a taxicab which collided with another motor vehicle at the intersection of West 53rd St…
Practitioners open Margie C. Zoldas v. Louise Cab Corporation when New York summary judgment turns on the distinction in this sentence: "J. This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to meet the threshold requirement of a “serious injury” as defined by the No-Fault Law (Insurance Law § 671 [4]). On May 28,1978, at about 7:15 a.m." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
How LawDiver can help
LawDiver is built for researching the same authorities a courtroom expects — not for inventing cites.
- LawDiver search — From this guide page, the search rail is scoped to New York. Search phrases like
pro se,service of process,motion to compel, or your statute number. - Corpus-linked opinions — Every case block above links to a
/casedisplayopinion id that exists in LawDiver's caselaw corpus. Do not paste outside citations into filings unless you have verified them. - Statutes — Where New York codes are mirrored, open the linked statute sections from this article and read the live text before quoting.
- GoodLaw / citator workflow — Before you rely on an older opinion, check how later New York cases treat it.
- Evidence companion — Use the New York evidence guide when you are preparing exhibits or opposing a motion in limine.
- AI research with grounding — Prefer tools that require retrieval from your matter and the LawDiver corpus over chatbots that invent case names.
LawDiver does not file documents for you, give legal advice, or replace a lawyer when the stakes, opposing counsel, or entity-representation rules require one.
New York case law highlights
Use the topic sections above for pro se practice, pleadings, service, discovery, and summary judgment. Re-run LawDiver searches before hearings — new published opinions appear continuously.
Checklist before you file in New York
- Confirm you (not an entity) may appear pro se for this claim.
- Pick small-claims parts (e.g., NYC Civil Court Small Claims; town/village justice courts) vs Supreme Court (County / Civil / District Courts and NYC Civil Court for many claims) based on amount and remedy.
- Draft a summons and complaint (or summons with notice) that states facts and a legal theory.
- Register on NYSCEF (New York State Courts Electronic Filing) (or confirm paper filing is allowed).
- Arrange proper service under CPLR Article 3.
- Calendar answer deadlines, discovery cutoffs, and any jury-demand deadline.
- Research controlling New York cases and the New York evidence law (CPLR Article 45 and case law) on LawDiver.
- Consider limited-scope or full representation if the other side has counsel or the claim exceeds small-claims complexity.
Key takeaways
- Individuals may appear pro se. Corporations generally must appear by New York counsel (limited small-claims exceptions for certain authorized employees).
- Main trial forum: Supreme Court (County / Civil / District Courts and NYC Civil Court for many claims). Smaller disputes often belong in small-claims parts (e.g., NYC Civil Court Small Claims; town/village justice courts) (commonly up to $10,000 in NYC Civil Court Small Claims (confirm local)).
- Procedure: CPLR (Civil Practice Law and Rules); Uniform Civil Rules. Opening paper: a summons and complaint (or summons with notice).
- Service: CPLR Article 3. Serve the summons and complaint under CPLR 308 (natural persons) or 311 (corporations) — personal delivery, deliver-and-mail, or other statutory methods.
- E-filing: NYSCEF (New York State Courts Electronic Filing). Many Supreme Court counties mandate or permit NYSCEF for self-represented parties.
- Pair this page with the LawDiver search rail (scoped to New York) and the New York evidence guide.
Primary search phrases this page targets: file a lawsuit without a lawyer New York; New York pro se litigation; NYSCEF pro se; how to sue someone in New York.
Contents
- What is a statute, case, rule, and regulation?
- Can you litigate pro se in New York?
- Role of the judge and the jury
- Pleadings: complaint, answer, and motions
- How to file and serve in New York
- Registering for e-filing
- Discovery
- Rules of evidence (short tour)
- Summary judgment and other dispositive motions
- How LawDiver can help
- New York case law highlights
- Frequently asked questions
Frequently asked questions
How do I file a lawsuit without a lawyer in New York?
Prepare a summons and complaint (or summons with notice), file it in the correct New York court (Supreme Court (County / Civil / District Courts and NYC Civil Court for many claims) or small-claims parts (e.g., NYC Civil Court Small Claims; town/village justice courts)), pay or waive the fee, obtain a summons, and complete service under CPLR Article 3. Register for NYSCEF (New York State Courts Electronic Filing) when e-filing is required or available.
What is the difference between a statute and a court rule?
A statute creates substantive rights and duties. A court rule (such as CPLR (Civil Practice Law and Rules); Uniform Civil Rules) controls procedure — captions, service, discovery, and trial mechanics. You usually need both.
Do I need to register for e-filing?
Many Supreme Court counties mandate or permit NYSCEF for self-represented parties. NYC Civil Court and small claims have separate e-filing/paper rules — check the local court. Registration steps: Create a NYSCEF unrepresented-user account, complete identity verification, and pay filing fees or seek a poor-person order (CPLR 1101).
Will I get a jury?
Demand a jury under CPLR 4102 for eligible claims; note waiver risks. Small claims are typically non-jury.
What happens in discovery?
CPLR Article 31 governs disclosure (discovery). Preliminary conferences in Supreme Court set disclosure schedules.
How does LawDiver help a pro se litigant?
It lets you search and read New York opinions and statutes that actually exist in the LawDiver corpus, with links you can verify — reducing the risk of hallucinated citations — while you still remain responsible for filing, service, and courtroom advocacy.
Disclaimer
LawDiver publishes this guide for public legal-information and SEO education purposes. It is not a substitute for advice from a licensed New York attorney. Court rules, e-filing vendors, fee schedules, and jurisdictional limits change. Verify every citation and deadline against official New York sources and the live LawDiver corpus before relying on them in a filing.