You are here: / / REQUIRING AN OUT OF STATE RESIDENT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED...
,

REQUIRING AN OUT OF STATE RESIDENT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN NEW YORK DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dickerson, determined requiring an out-of-state resident to post security for costs associated with a lawsuit brought in New York does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the US Constitution. The plaintiff was injured in an accident in New York (when she was a New York resident) and subsequently moved to Georgia. The defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 8501 and 8503 to direct plaintiff to post security for costs in the amount of $500:

… [T]he U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause is satisfied so long as a nonresident ” is given access to the courts of the State upon terms which in themselves are reasonable and adequate for the enforcing of any rights he [or she] may have'” … . … There is a substantial reason for the difference in treatment between nonresidents and residents, namely, the fact that nonresident plaintiffs are unlikely to have assets in New York that may be used to enforce a costs judgment. And the discrimination practiced against nonresidents—requiring nonresident plaintiffs to post security for costs—bears a substantial relationship to the State’s objective of deterring frivolous or harassing lawsuits and preventing a defendant from having to resort to a foreign jurisdiction to enforce a costs judgment … . Clement v Durban, 2016 NY Slip Op 08500, 2nd Dept 12-21-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (REQUIRING AN OUT OF STATE RESIDENT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN NEW YORK DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION)/COSTS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, REQUIRING AN OUT OF STATE RESIDENT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN NEW YORK DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION)/SECURITY (COSTS CIVIL PROCEDURE, REQUIRING AN OUT OF STATE RESIDENT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN NEW YORK DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION)/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (REQUIRING AN OUT OF STATE RESIDENT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN NEW YORK DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION)/PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (REQUIRING AN OUT OF STATE RESIDENT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN NEW YORK DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE COURT GRANTED THE MOTION BASED UPON REMARKS MADE BY DEFENSE COUNSEL DURING SUMMATION, REMARKS TO WHICH NO OBJECTION HAD BEEN MADE (SECOND DEPT).
RES IPSA LOQUITUR DID NOT APPLY TO APARTMENT CEILING COLLAPSE BECAUSE LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD BREACHED DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE (SECOND DEPT).
​HERE THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRESENT A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR OR ANSWER AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF A POTENTIALLY MERITORIOUS DEFENSE; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED DEFENDANTS AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN OWNER OR A GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND EXERCISED NO SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OVER THE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED; HOWEVER DEFENDANT MAY HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS CONDITION DURING PRIOR WORK ON THE PROPERTY; THEREFORE THE COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMSSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTIES RUNS THROUGH A DRIVEWAY, 10 FEET ON DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY AND SEVEN FEET ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING PLAINTIFFS DID NOT HAVE A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT OVER THE DRIVEWAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH NURSING HOME MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT TO THIRD PARTY INJURED BY ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION.
THE EXPERT DISCLOSURE COMBINED WITH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS GAVE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S OPINION; THE TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT EVIDENCE SHOWING WHEN THE SIDEWALK WAS LAST INSPECTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NO RECORD SUPPORT FOR LOWER COURT’S DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION OF LINE-UPS... COURTS OF EQUITY HAVE BROAD POWERS TO ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FORECLOSURE...