You are here: / / CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY...
,

CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, determined that CPLR 8501 (a) and 8503, which require an out-of-state litigant to post a minimum of $500 security for costs in case the nonresident loses, does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause:

When plaintiff commenced this personal injury action, she was a New York resident. Plaintiff then relocated to Georgia, prompting defendants to move, pursuant to CPLR 8501 (a) and 8503, for an order compelling plaintiff—a nonresident at the time the motion was made—to post a minimum of $500 security for costs in the event she lost the case (see CPLR 8101). Defendants also requested a stay of the proceedings pursuant to CPLR 8502 until plaintiff complied with the order. In opposition, plaintiff argued that CPLR 8501 (a) and 8503 were unconstitutional because they violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Federal Constitution by impairing nonresident plaintiffs’ fundamental right of access to the courts.

Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion, opining that although access to the courts is a fundamental right protectable under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, CPLR 8501 (a) and 8503 do not bar access to the courts … . Supreme Court further stated that security for costs provisions are common nationwide … .

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed. The court held that CPLR article 85 satisfied the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Canadian Northern R.R. Co. v Eggen (252 US 553 [1920]), and re-affirmed in McBurney v Young (569 US 221 [2013]), that nonresidents must be given “access to the courts of the state upon terms which in themselves are reasonable and adequate for the enforcing of any rights [they] may have” … . On that basis, the Appellate Division held that “the challenged statutory provisions do not deprive noncitizens of New York of reasonable and adequate access to New York courts” … . … [[W]e … affirm. Clement v Durban, 2018 NY Slip Op 07693, CtApp 11-14-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP))/CPLR 8501, 8503 (CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP))/COSTS  (CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP))/PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP))

You might also like
QUESTIONS WHETHER PROSPECTIVE JURORS COULD DISREGARD AN INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED, CONVICTION REVERSED.
“Substantial Factor in Producing the Injury” Jury Instruction (Re: Causation) Did Not Reduce Plaintiff’s Burden of Proof
Defense Counsel’s Failure to Object to the Prosecutor’s Mischaracterization of the Strength and Meaning of DNA Evidence Constituted Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
AN UNAMBIGUOUS CONTRACT PROVISION CONSTITUTES “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” WHICH WILL SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (CT APP).
THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT DOES NOT RENDER THE MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGES FOR JUDGES UNCONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP). ​
In the Absence of an Express Agreement that the Plaintiff Was Entitled to a Commission Upon the Sale of Assets by the Principal, the Agreement Created an Exclusive Agency, which Merely Precluded the Principal from Hiring Another Agent, but Did Not Create, in the Agent, an Exclusive Right to Sell
THE TOWN LAW STATUTE WHICH AUTHORIZES A TOWN TO REGULATE THE DISCHARGE OF “FIREARMS” DOES NOT AUTHORIZE A TOWN TO REGULATE THE DISCHARGE OF “BOWS” (CT APP).
In an Action Stemming from the Purchase of Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, the Breach of Defendant’s Representations and Warranties Concerning the Borrowers’ Incomes, Occupancy Status and Debt Obligations Occurred on the Date the Contract Was Executed (Starting the Six-Year Statute of Limitations at that Point)—Defendant’s Obligation to Cure or Repurchase Did Not Constitute a Second Contract—Defendant’s Refusal to Cure or Repurchase, Therefore, Did Not Start the Running of Another Six-Year Limitations Period

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

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CURE A DEFAULT IN MONTHLY... VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY...