You are here: / / 60-Day Rule Did Not Apply—Failure to Submit Proposed Order Within...

60-Day Rule Did Not Apply—Failure to Submit Proposed Order Within 60 Days Did Not Constitute Abandonment of the Claim

The Second Department determined the 60-day rule with respect to the submission of orders did not apply:

22 NYCRR 202.48, entitled “[s]ubmission of orders, judgments and decrees for signature,” states in pertinent part:

“(a) Proposed orders or judgments, with proof of service on all parties where the order is directed to be settled or submitted on notice, must be submitted for signature, unless otherwise directed by the court, within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order be settled or submitted.

“(b) Failure to submit the order or judgment timely shall be deemed an abandonment of the motion or action, unless for good cause shown.”

Here, the so-called 60-day rule set forth in 22 NYCRR 202.48 is not applicable because the Supreme Court’s direction that the defendants submit a proposed order with respect to an award of an attorney’s fee did not specify that the proposed order be settled or submitted on notice … . Accordingly, the plaintiff’s contention that the defendants abandoned their claim for an award of an attorney’s fee by failing to comply with the 60-day rule is without merit. 47 Thames Realty LLC v Robinson, 2014 NY Slip Op 06051, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

You might also like
WILLFULNESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF CIVIL CONTEMPT, MOTHER’S MOTION TO FIND FATHER IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATIONS OF ORDERS CONCERNING CONTACT WITH THE CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT HAD THE POWER TO RETROACTIVELY DISMISS A NEGLECT PETITION AND IMPOSE A SUSPENDED JUDGMENT AFTER MOTHER DEMONSTRATED THE ABILITY TO CARE FOR HER CHILDREN (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S AGENTS WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT NO LONGER NEED BE SHOWN (SECOND DEPT).
THE STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT WAS DE-ACCELERATED WITHIN THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PERIOD IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
SURGERY, EVEN AFTER A DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A PRE-SURGERY PHYSICAL EXAM, IS NOT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AND DOES NOT WARRANT SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT).
THE ESTATE OF A JOINT TENANT WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE THE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY PASSED UPON DEATH, THE ESTATE’S MOTION TO INTERVENE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (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

Arbitrator’s Award Which Did Not Resolve the Controversy Properly Vac... Class Certification Not Available When Action Seeks Payment of a Nonwaivable...