You are here: / / AN ORDER IS NOT ABANDONDED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48 UNLESS THE ORDER...
,

AN ORDER IS NOT ABANDONDED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48 UNLESS THE ORDER DIRECTS THAT IT BE SETTLED OR SUBMITTED FOR SIGNATURE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined dismissal of a motion to enter a default judgment as abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCTT 202.48(b) was improper because the underlying order did not direct that it be settled or submitted for signature:

The Supreme Court incorrectly, sua sponte, dismissed the action as abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48(b) because … its determination of the plaintiff’s 2014 motion did not expressly direct that the proposed judgment or order be settled or submitted for signature (see 22 NYCRR 202.48[a]; Funk v Barry, 89 NY2d 364, 367). HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Moley, 2016 NY Slip Op 08844, 2nd Dept 12-28-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (AN ORDER IS NOT ABANDONDED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48 UNLESS THE ORDER DIRECTS THAT IT BE SETTLED OR SUBMITTED FOR SIGNATURE)/ABANDONMENT (CIVIL PROCEDURE, ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS, AN ORDER IS NOT ABANDONDED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48 UNLESS THE ORDER DIRECTS THAT IT BE SETTLED OR SUBMITTED FOR SIGNATURE)/ORDERS (ABANDONMENT, (AN ORDER IS NOT ABANDONDED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48 UNLESS THE ORDER DIRECTS THAT IT BE SETTLED OR SUBMITTED FOR SIGNATURE)

You might also like
Verdict Finding Defendant’s Negligence Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Injury Set Aside as Against the Weight of the Evidence—Criteria Explained
PLAINTIFF FELL 15 TO 20 FEET SUFFERING A FRACTURED RIB AND A FRACTURED FEMUR WHICH REQUIRED AN OPEN REDUCTION AND INTERNAL FIXATION SURGERY; THE VERDICT AWARDING $1.5 MILLION FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING, $2.5 MILLION FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING, AND $800,000 FOR FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE AS EXCESSIVE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST FOR COUNSEL NOT HONORED; CONVICTION REVERSED.
SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION WAS NOT UNDULY SUGGESTIVE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.
PLAINTIFF BANK PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT PROPERLY PROHIBITED FATHER FROM POSTING BLOGS DISPARAGING THE CHILD’S RELATIVES ON SOCIAL MEDIA, BUT THE RESTRICTIONS WERE TOO BROAD IN THAT THEY WENT BEYOND THE NEEDS OF THE CASE (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE DISMSSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DEPRIVED PLAINTIFF OF NOTICE AND A CHANCE TO BE HEARD, A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DENTIST WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (THIRD 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

ALTHOUGH THE HOSPITAL WAS NOT LIABLE IN ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE FOR RELEASING PLAINTIFF... DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED...