New York Senate Bill S08294

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/30/25
• Refer: 5/30/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Requires a detailed determination in orders determining a motion, no longer up to a judge's discretion.

Summary

This bill amends section 2219 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules to require that orders deciding motions include a detailed determination, rather than leaving the level of detail to the judge’s discretion. Under current law, a motion order must be in writing, identify the papers considered, and state the determination or direction in such detail as the judge deems proper. The bill removes that discretionary language and replaces it with a requirement for a detailed determination in the order. The bill also preserves existing requirements that motion orders be timely issued, signed, identify the court and date, and recite the papers used on the motion. It further keeps the rule that, except in town or village courts or where otherwise provided by law, a party may request that an oral or written ruling be reduced to writing or otherwise recorded. The act would take effect immediately upon enactment.

Impact

The bill would change New York civil procedure by narrowing judicial discretion over the content of motion orders and requiring more explicit written reasoning in orders determining motions. This would affect judges, litigants, and attorneys in civil cases by potentially increasing the clarity and record of motion rulings, which could aid review, enforcement, and appellate practice. The amendment applies to CPLR rule 2219 and would alter how orders on motions are drafted statewide.

Sentiment

There is limited recorded discussion or voting history available for this bill, so no strong support or opposition can be inferred from committee debate or floor votes. Based on the bill’s caption and text, the measure appears procedural and aimed at improving transparency and consistency in motion practice rather than changing substantive rights. The available context suggests a neutral-to-positive policy rationale focused on judicial accountability and clearer rulings.

Contention

The main point of contention is the removal of judicial discretion over how detailed a motion order must be. Supporters would likely favor mandatory detail to improve transparency, create a clearer record, and reduce ambiguity in rulings. Opponents may view the requirement as an added burden on judges, potentially increasing drafting time and reducing flexibility in routine motion practice. The bill does not identify any specific stakeholder opposition in the available materials, but the tension is between procedural clarity and judicial workload/discretion.