You are here: / / Rule Requiring Submission of Order or Judgment for Signature within 60...
,

Rule Requiring Submission of Order or Judgment for Signature within 60 Days Applies Only When Court Directs that the Proposed Order Be Settled or Submitted for Signature

The Fourth Department determined an action had not been abandoned for failure to submit the order for signature within 60 days pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48.  That rule applies only when the court directs a party to submit or settle an order or judgment:

…[W]e agree with plaintiff that the court erred in dismissing the complaint sua sponte pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48. That rule provides that “[p]roposed orders or judgments . . . 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 . . . Failure to submit the order or judgment timely shall be deemed an abandonment of the motion or action, unless for good cause shown” (22 NYCRR 202.48 [a], [b]). As the Court of Appeals wrote, “[b]y its plain terms, section 202.48 (a) speaks to the circumstances where the court’s decision expressly directs a party to submit or settle an order or judgment” (Funk v Barry, 89 NY2d 364, 367). Thus, the Court held that “the 60-day period applies only where the court explicitly directs that the proposed judgment or order be settled or submitted for signature” (id. at 365). Here, the order of reference did not explicitly direct plaintiff to settle or submit an order or judgment for signature. Rather, it directed plaintiff to submit a “Motion or [an] Ex Parte Application” seeking a judgment of foreclosure and sale. We therefore conclude that the court erred in dismissing the complaint in reliance on 22 NYCRR 202.48… . Midfirst Bank v Bellinger, 2014 NY Slip Op 03365, 4th Dept 5-9-14

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHAT SHOULD BE REDACTED FROM THE PRESENTENCE REPORT BUT IS NOT ENTITLED TO RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS COMMON LAW DISSOLUTION ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT BY THE CORPORATION OF HIS EXPENSES FOR DEFENDING AGAINST THE CORPORATION’S COUNTERCLAIMS, AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROHIBIT THE DEFENDANTS FROM USING CORPORATE FUNDS TO DEFEND AGAINST THE COMMON LAW DISSOLUTION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
ALLEGATIONS THAT RESPONDENT INSTALLED SOFTWARE ON PETITIONER’S COMPUTER ALLOWING RESPONDENT TO CONTROL THE COMPUTER REMOTELY, AND ALLEGATIONS RESPONDENT MADE PHONE CALLS TO PETITIONER INTENDED TO BE THREATENING, SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE FAMILY OFFENSES OF HARASSMENT AND STALKING (FOURTH DEPT).
FAILURE OF NO-FAULT BENEFIT ASSIGNEE TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATIONS UNDER OATH (EUO’S) REQUESTED BY THE CARRIER IS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE CARRIER’S OBLIGATION TO PAY THE NO-FAULT CLAIMS WHERE COVERAGE HAS NOT BEEN TIMELY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW BY WALKING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET AT THE TIME OF THE STREET STOP; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT AND THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANTS’ PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE; DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTORCYCLE (FOURTH DEPT).
ARBITRATOR’S AWARD WAS NOT IRRATIONAL, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE VACATED THE AWARD IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE (FOURTH 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Unexplained Collapse of Worker on the Job Properly Presumed to Arise Out of... Insurance Company’s Documents Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege/Where...