(a) One form of action. There is only one form of civil action. The distinctions between actions at law and suits in equity, and the forms of those actions and suits, have been abolished.
§ 103.Form of civil judicial proceedings.
Article 1. Short Title; Applicability and Definitions · Last amended 2003 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceAbolishes the old law-versus-equity distinction, makes the action the default form of civil case with special proceedings allowed only where specifically authorized, and lets a court fix the wrong choice of form instead of dismissing the case.
Full Text of CPLR 103
(b) Action or special proceeding. All civil judicial proceedings shall be prosecuted in the form of an action, except where prosecution in the form of a special proceeding is authorized. Except where otherwise prescribed by law, procedure in special proceedings shall be the same as in actions, and the provisions of the civil practice law and rules applicable to actions shall be applicable to special proceedings.
(c) Improper form. If a court has obtained jurisdiction over the parties, a civil judicial proceeding shall not be dismissed solely because it is not brought in the proper form, but the court shall make whatever order is required for its proper prosecution. If the court finds it appropriate in the interests of justice, it may convert a motion into a special proceeding, or vice-versa, upon such terms as may be just, including the payment of fees and costs.
Plain-English Summary
CPLR 103 clears away one of the oldest sources of dismissed cases: bringing a claim in the wrong form. Subdivision (a) abolishes the old separation between “actions at law” and “suits in equity” and the different pleading forms each demanded. New York now has one form of civil action.
Subdivision (b) sets the action as the default vehicle for civil relief and confines the special proceeding — a faster track commenced by notice of petition rather than summons — to situations a statute specifically authorizes. Outside those authorized situations, a special proceeding otherwise follows the same rules as an action, so the CPLR's procedural framework carries over automatically instead of requiring a separate rulebook for every type of special proceeding.
Subdivision (c) is the safety valve. If the court already has jurisdiction over the parties, choosing the wrong form is no longer fatal — the court fixes the mislabeling and lets the case proceed, rather than throwing it out. A 2002 amendment extended that same flexibility to motions, letting a court convert a motion into a special proceeding, or the reverse, when justice calls for it, after a Court of Appeals decision left litigants who had confirmed arbitration awards by motion, instead of by a separate special proceeding, with no way to fix the error.
Together, the three subdivisions describe a system built around substance over labels: courts decide the merits, and the label on the paperwork doesn't get in the way once the case has landed in a court that has the parties before it.
Frequently Asked Questions
What's the difference between an “action” and a “special proceeding” in New York?
An action is the default way to bring a civil case and is commenced by a summons; a special proceeding is a faster track, commenced by a notice of petition, available only when a specific statute authorizes it for that type of claim.
If I filed my case in the wrong form, will a New York court dismiss it?
Not automatically. Under CPLR 103(c), once the court has jurisdiction over the parties, it can't dismiss a case solely because it wasn't brought in the proper form — it must instead issue whatever order is needed to let the case proceed correctly.
Can a court convert a motion into a special proceeding?
Yes. Under a 2002 amendment to CPLR 103(c), a court may convert a motion into a special proceeding, or the reverse, on terms it finds just, including requiring payment of fees or costs.
Are “actions at law” and “suits in equity” still separate categories in New York?
No. CPLR 103(a) abolished that distinction along with its separate pleading forms — New York now has one form of civil action.
Does the CPLR's procedure automatically apply to special proceedings?
Yes, unless a specific statute says otherwise. CPLR 103(b) makes the CPLR's procedure for actions apply equally to special proceedings, except where the law governing a particular proceeding provides different rules.
Advisory Committee Notes
Subd (a) is identical with CPA § 8.
The first sentence of subd (b) expresses the former law. An action is the “ordinary” method of obtaining relief. See CPA § 4. A court will not grant relief by special proceeding unless specifically authorized by law to do so.
A “civil judicial proceeding” is defined in § 105 of the new CPLR. An action or a special proceeding, however, will not be further defined. Sections 4 and 5 of the CPA have been eliminated as offering little aid in such definition. Sections 11-a and 46-a of the General Construction Law, containing similar provisions, should be repealed.
The first sentence of subd (b) contains the essentials of the definitions contained in CPA §§ 4 and 5, i.e., that they are both civil judicial proceedings and that they are mutually exclusive. Further definition is left to the case law. Those proceedings which have traditionally been commenced by a summons, and employ other procedure of an action, are actions. In special proceedings, certain procedure other than that of an action is authorized. The major difference in procedure is that a special proceeding is commenced by a notice of petition, or the equivalent, which brings on a hearing in a relatively short time.
The second sentence of subd (b) varies somewhat from former law. Where under former law a special statute governing a particular special proceeding was silent as to certain procedure, it might not safely be assumed that the section of the CPA governing corresponding procedure in an action would apply. Applicability of the CPA to special proceedings was required to be determined from an analysis of each section.
Under subd (b) the new CPLR is generally applicable in special proceedings except to the extent that procedure is otherwise provided for. The major source of such provisions for special proceedings are the provisions of Article 4 and the special statutes governing particular special proceedings. Because of the exception in this subdivision, such statutes need not state expressly that they affect the CPLR, as would be otherwise required by § 101 of the General Construction Law.
Subd (c) is designed to eliminate the last remnants of dismissal for improper form of proceeding that continued to exist under former law. Although a litigant no longer risked dismissal for couching his complaint in the terminology of the wrong “form of action” (see CPA § 8), his claim might be dismissed, for example, if he made an application for relief in the form of a special proceeding when he should have brought an action. The theory which prompted the inclusion of the counterpart of CPA § 8 in the Field Code is extended by this subdivision to allow the court to order that the proceeding continue as an action, in such a case, rather than that it be dismissed.
The Committee proposes an amendment to CPLR 103(c) to clarify the ability of a court to convert a motion into a special proceeding.
From the outset CPLR 103(c) has permitted the conversion of a special proceeding into an action and vice versa. It has even inspired caselaw that extended the conversion power to embrace a motion as well. See, eg., Empire Mutual Ins. Co. v. Palladino , 54 A.D.2d 863 (1st Dept. 1976). However, the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Solkav v. Besicorp Group Inc. , 91 N.Y.2d 482 (1998), appears to indicate that the conversion of a motion is not permissible. In that case, the Court of Appeals held that a separate special proceeding must be brought to confirm an arbitration award, finding that it was not permissible to confirm an award by motion as part of an earlier special proceeding. A dismissal need not have been the result in Solkav had the court merely been empowered to convert the motion into a new proceeding.
The inability to effect such a conversion in a proper case can produce injustice. Two amendments to CPLR 7502(a) were necessary to undo the damage caused by Solkav . The first amendment, Chapter 226 of the Laws of 2000, stipulated, among its other provisions, that all subsequent proceedings to confirm or deny an arbitration award must be made in the special proceeding or action where the first application was made.
The second amendment, recommended by the Committee and passed by the Legislature in 2001 (L. 2001. c.567), was a revival statute that revived the time for making an application to confirm (or contest) an arbitration award in instances in which the relief had previously been applied for in a timely manner, but was denied solely on the ground of utilizing the wrong form (i.e., a motion rather than a special proceeding). It dealt with those litigants who were not covered by the 2000 amendment—those proponents of arbitration awards that were confirmed by motion instead of commencing a special proceeding in cases ending before the Solkav decision was issued on May 12, 1998.
This new proposal is narrowly tailored, leaving the conversion to the discretion of the court in contrast with the “shall” instruction applicable to conversions between actions and special proceedings under CPLR 103(c). It also empowers the court to impose such terms as it feels are just, including the payment of fees and costs.
Amendment History
Add, L 1962, ch 308, § 1, eff Sept 1, 1963; amd, L 2002, ch 593, § 1, eff Jan 1, 2003.
Source & verification. Provision text, History, and Advisory
Committee Notes are reproduced verbatim from the Consolidated Laws of New York.
Last verified July 21, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: action versus special proceeding New Yorkone form of civil action New Yorkconverting a motion into a special proceedingdismissed for wrong form of proceeding New York