New York Senate Bill S00887

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/7/26
• Engrossed: 3/17/26
• Refer: 3/17/26

Caption

Provides that a surrogate court clerk or chief clerk shall refuse to accept for filing papers filed in a proceeding only under certain circumstances or as designated in statute, administrative rule or order of the court; provides such reasons; requires the payment of any applicable statutory fees, or an order of the court waiving payment of such fees, before accepting a paper for filing; makes related provisions.

Summary

S00887 amends the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act to limit when a surrogate court clerk or chief clerk may refuse to accept papers for filing in a surrogate’s court proceeding. The bill specifies a narrow set of reasons for refusal, including missing file numbers, incomplete captions using “et al,” filing in the wrong court, improper signatures, and noncompliance with electronic filing requirements in cases subject to e-filing. It also allows refusal if required statutory filing fees have not been paid or waived by court order. The bill further requires clerks to mark a refused paper with a dated stamp and provide a written explanation for the refusal on the paper itself. It takes effect immediately and is intended to standardize filing practices in surrogate’s court and make the basis for rejection more transparent to litigants and practitioners.

Impact

The bill would amend section 2611 of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act, creating explicit filing-acceptance rules for surrogate court clerks and chief clerks. It would constrain clerk discretion by limiting refusals to the enumerated grounds or other grounds specifically authorized by statute, administrative rule, or court order, while also reinforcing fee-payment requirements and documentation of refusals. The practical effect would be to affect estate, probate, and other surrogate’s court filings by clarifying procedural compliance requirements for attorneys, unrepresented litigants, and court staff.

Sentiment

The available voting history shows strong support for the bill, with unanimous approval in the Senate Judiciary Committee and unanimous final passage in the Senate. That pattern suggests broad agreement that the measure is a procedural clarification rather than a controversial policy change. No committee transcript is available, but the vote results indicate little to no opposition in the recorded legislative process.

Contention

No direct committee discussion is provided, and the recorded votes show no opposition, so there is no documented substantive contention in the available materials. Based on the text, any potential concerns would likely center on whether the bill unduly limits clerks’ administrative discretion or, conversely, whether it appropriately protects filers from inconsistent or arbitrary rejection of papers. The bill also touches on electronic filing compliance and fee enforcement, which could be points of operational concern for court administrators and practitioners, but no specific opposition is reflected in the record provided.