You are here: / Judges
,

WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED AT SENTENCING HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ONE OF THE RELEVANT OFFENSES THE SENTENCING JUDGE SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE DEFENDANT ABOUT WHETHER HIS WISHED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, FAILURE TO DO SO REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Third Department determined statements made by the defendant at his sentencing, denying involvement in at least one of the relevant offenses, raised questions about whether plea was voluntary and required further inquiry, including whether defendant wished to withdraw his plea:

​

… [W]hile the issue most often arises during the plea allocution… , the Court of Appeals has recognized that a defendant may negate an element of the crime to which a plea has been entered or make a statement suggestive of an involuntary plea at postplea proceedings, including sentencing, which may require the trial court to then conduct a further inquiry or give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea … . …

… [W]hen confronted by County Court with the fact that he had pleaded guilty to assault in the first degree, which requires intent to cause serious physical injury to another person … , defendant asserted that it was his deceased friend who “actually did the shooting” and that he “was at the wrong place at the wrong time.” County Court recognized that defendant was denying the intentional assault, but it made no further inquiry. County Court proceeded to sentencing without providing defendant with an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. This was error. Although defendant did not preserve his challenge to the voluntariness of his plea by making a motion to withdraw his plea, his statements at sentencing triggered the exception to the preservation requirement … .. While defendant’s remarks did not necessarily implicate all of the crimes to which he pleaded guilty, because it was an integrated plea agreement with a promised aggregate sentence, the judgment must be reversed in its entirety … . People v Gresham, 2017 NY Slip Op 04498, 3rd Dept 6-8-17

 

SENTENCING (DENIAL OF INVOLVEMENT, WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA, WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED AT SENTENCING HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ONE OF THE RELEVANT OFFENSES THE SENTENCING JUDGE SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE DEFENDANT ABOUT WHETHER HIS WISHED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, FAILURE TO DO SO REQUIRED REVERSAL)/CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, DENIAL OF INVOLVEMENT, WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA,WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED AT SENTENCING HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ONE OF THE RELEVANT OFFENSES THE SENTENCING JUDGE SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE DEFENDANT ABOUT WHETHER HIS WISHED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, FAILURE TO DO SO REQUIRED REVERSAL) )/JUDGES (CRIMINAL LAW, SENTENCING, DENIAL OF INVOLVEMENT, WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA, WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED AT SENTENCING HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ONE OF THE RELEVANT OFFENSES THE SENTENCING JUDGE SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE DEFENDANT ABOUT WHETHER HIS WISHED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, FAILURE TO DO SO REQUIRED REVERSAL)

,

EXCESSIVE INTERFERENCE BY THE JUDGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL.

The Second Department determined excessive interference by the judge deprived defendant of a fair trial:

​

“Trial judges have wide discretion in directing the presentation of evidence but must exercise that discretion appropriately and without prejudice to the parties” … . While “neither the nature of our adversary system nor the constitutional requirement of a fair trial preclude a trial court from assuming an active role in the truth-seeking process,” the court’s discretion in this area is not unfettered … . “The overarching principle restraining the court’s discretion is that it is the function of the judge to protect the record at trial, not to make it. Although the law will allow a certain degree of judicial intervention in the presentation of evidence, the line is crossed when the judge takes on either the function or appearance of an advocate at trial” … . Thus, while there is no absolute bar to a trial court asking a particular number of questions of the witnesses in order to advance the goals of truth and clarity, a court may not “assume the advocacy role traditionally reserved for counsel, and in order to avoid this, the court’s discretion to intervene must be exercised sparingly” … .

​

Here, notwithstanding numerous objections by defense counsel, the Supreme Court exercised little or no restraint in questioning the witnesses at length and improperly “assume[d] the advocacy role traditionally reserved for counsel” (id.). We acknowledge that this trial was lengthy because it involved three codefendants and multiple complainants. However, contrary to the People’s contention, the court’s questioning of the witnesses far exceeded what was necessary to “clarify[ ] confusing testimony” or facilitate “the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial” … . The court engaged in protracted and often unnecessary questioning on both direct and cross-examination, and at times acted as an advocate for the People … . People v Robinson, 2017 NY Slip Op 04473, 2nd Dept 6-7-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGES, EXCESSIVE INTERFERENCE BY THE JUDGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL)/JUDGES (CRIMINAL LAW, EXCESSIVE INTERFERENCE BY THE JUDGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL)

,

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS FILED IN THE WRONG COURT.

The Second Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted on the ground that the affidavit of service was filed in the wrong office. Service was timely made and the error was corrected as soon as it was known:

​

” The failure to file proof of service is a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, that may be cured by motion or sua sponte by the court in its discretion'” … .Here, there is no reason to believe that the defendants did not properly and timely serve Minard in compliance with the so-ordered stipulation dated December 8, 2014. Moreover, the defendants promptly requested permission to correct the irregularity in filing the affidavit of service after learning that it was filed in the wrong office, and there was no allegation or indication of prejudice to the plaintiff as a result of the requested correction. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ application for an extension of time to file the affidavit of service in the Clerk’s office, and thereupon denying their motion for summary judgment on the ground that they failed to file proof of service in that office … . Buist v Bromley Co., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 04417, 2nd Dept 6-7-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS FILED IN THE WRONG COURT)/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE (ERROR IN FILING, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS FILED IN THE WRONG COURT)

, ,

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED BY AN ATTORNEY WAIVES ANY DEFENSE BASED UPON LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, DEFENSE OF LACK OF STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY SUPREME COURT SUA SPONTE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss based upon a lack of personal jurisdiction in this foreclosure action should have been denied. Defendant had appeared by an attorney (notice of appearance) and thereby waived any “lack of personal jurisdiction” argument. The Second Department further noted that Supreme Court should not have raised the defendant’s lack of standing sua sponte:

… [T]he defendant waived any claim that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction over her. Pursuant to CPLR 320(a), “[t]he defendant appears by serving an answer or a notice of appearance, or by making a motion which has the effect of extending the time to answer.” Subject to certain exceptions not applicable here (see CPLR 320[c]), “an appearance of the defendant is equivalent to personal service of the summons upon him, unless an objection to jurisdiction under [CPLR 3211(a)(8)] is asserted by motion or in the answer as provided in [CPLR 3211]” (CPLR 320[b]). “By statute, a party may appear in an action by attorney (CPLR 321), and such an appearance constitutes an appearance by the party for purposes of conferring jurisdiction” … . Here, the defendant’s attorney appeared in the action on her behalf by filing a notice of appearance  … , and neither the defendant nor her attorney moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction at that time or asserted lack of personal jurisdiction in a responsive pleading … . Accordingly, the defendant waived any claim that the Supreme Court lacked personal jurisdiction over her in this action … . To the extent that prior decisions of this Court could be interpreted to require a different result … , they should no longer be followed. American Home Mtge. Servicing, Inc. v Arklis, 2017 NY Slip Op 04242, 2nd Dept 5-31-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED BY AN ATTORNEY WAIVES ANY DEFENSE BASED UPON LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION)/JURISDICTION (CIVIL PROCEDURE, NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED BY AN ATTORNEY WAIVES ANY DEFENSE BASED UPON LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION)/FORECLOSURE (STANDING, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RAISED THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF STANDING SUA SPONTE)

RULE THAT RETIRED JUDGES WHO RETURN TO THE BENCH CANNOT RECEIVE BOTH A SALARY AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS IS NEITHER ILLEGAL NOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the rule that retired judges who return to the bench cannot receive both a salary and retirement benefits was neither illegal nor unconstitutional. Matter of Loehr v Administrative Bd. of the Cts. of the State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 03558, CtApp 5-4-17

 

JUDGES (RULE THAT RETIRED JUDGES WHO RETURN TO THE BENCH CANNOT RECEIVE BOTH A SALARY AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS IS NEITHER ILLEGAL NOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL)

, ,

JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE.

The Fourth Department, in an original Article 78 proceeding, determined the judge was prohibited from imposing on defendant a sentence of probation. Defendant was sentenced to 30 days in jail. Outside the defendant’s presence the sentencing judge signed an order imposing a five-year probationary period and defendant agreed to the order by signing it in jail:

​

While a court possesses the inherent authority to correct a mistake or error in a criminal defendant’s sentence … , the process by which a court corrects such an error is by resentencing the defendant … , which must be done in the defendant’s presence (see CPL 380.40 [1]). We thus conclude that the Judge erred in imposing an additional component to the sentence outside of petitioner’s presence …

We further conclude that petitioner cannot now be resentenced. It is well settled that, “where a defendant is released from custody and returns to the community after serving the period of incarceration that was ordered by the sentencing court, and the time to appeal the sentence has expired or the appeal has been finally determined,’ a legitimate expectation of the original sentence’s finality arises and double jeopardy precludes the modification of that sentence to include a period of” probation … . Here, ,,, petitioner has completed serving the period of incarceration and has been released from custody. Petitioner did not file a notice of appeal, and the time within which to do so has expired … . Although petitioner, as of this writing, could still move for an extension of time to take an appeal … , he cannot be forced to do so. We thus conclude that petitioner’s sentence is “beyond the court’s authority,” and an additional component to that sentence cannot be imposed … . Matter of Brandon v Doran, 2017 NY Slip Op 03371, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARTICLE 78, PROHIBITION, CRIMINAL LAW, JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/JUDGES (ARTICLE 78, PROHIBITION, CRIMINAL LAW, JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/DOUBLE JEOPARDY (JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/SENTENCING (JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)

, , ,

SUNY POTSDAM’S SEXUAL MISCONDUCT DETERMINATION ANNULLED, NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, IMPOSITION OF A HARSHER PENALTY AFTER STUDENT’S APPEAL CRITICIZED.

The Third Department, hearing an Article 78 petition, over an extensive two-justice dissent, annulled the determination of SUNY Postdam which found student petitioner guilty of sexual misconduct and expelled him. The court noted its discomfort with several procedural issues and with the punishment imposed. The Third Department held that the determination was not supported by substantial evidence:

​

The complainant’s account was set forth by others who had conversed with her, with the Hearing Board considering written notes prepared by respondent Annette Robbins, SUNY’s director of student conduct and community standards, and the hearing testimony of a campus police officer. * * *

… [H]earsay must be “sufficiently relevant and probative [if it is] to constitute substantial evidence” … and, “when the hearsay evidence is seriously controverted, common sense and elemental fairness suggest that it may not constitute the substantial evidence necessary to support the [challenged] determination” … .

Petitioner testified at the hearing and, while the broad contours of his account matched those of the complainant, their accounts differed on the critical issue of consent. * * *

​

… [W]e feel the need to comment on the circumstances leading to its imposition. Upon petitioner’s appeal from the decision of the Hearing Board, the Appellate Board, sua sponte and without any explanation, recommended enhancing the penalty to expulsion. …  While nothing in the student code of conduct expressly prohibits the Appellate Board from recommending, and SUNY’s president from ultimately imposing, a more severe sanction upon a disciplined student’s appeal, nor does the student code of conduct explicitly advise an appealing student that such a consequence may inure as a result of an appeal. We are troubled by the absence of any such clear articulation that an enhanced penalty may result from a student’s choice to appeal the underlying determination and believe that, in this context, fairness warrants a clear and conspicuous advisement to that effect. Matter of Haug v State Univ. of N.Y. At Potsdam, 2017 NY Slip Op 02708, 3rd Dept 4-6-17

 

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (SUNY POTSDAM’S SEXUAL MISCONDUCT DETERMINATION ANNULLED, NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, IMPOSITION OF A HARSHER PENALTY AFTER STUDENT’S APPEAL CRITICIZED)/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, SUNY POTSDAM’S SEXUAL MISCONDUCT DETERMINATION ANNULLED, NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, IMPOSITION OF A HARSHER PENALTY AFTER STUDENT’S APPEAL CRITICIZED)/EVIDENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,  (SUNY POTSDAM’S SEXUAL MISCONDUCT DETERMINATION ANNULLED, NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, IMPOSITION OF A HARSHER PENALTY AFTER STUDENT’S APPEAL CRITICIZED)/COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (MISCONDUCT, SUNY POTSDAM’S SEXUAL MISCONDUCT DETERMINATION ANNULLED, NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, IMPOSITION OF A HARSHER PENALTY AFTER STUDENT’S APPEAL CRITICIZED)/HEARSAY (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, SUNY POTSDAM’S SEXUAL MISCONDUCT DETERMINATION ANNULLED, NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, IMPOSITION OF A HARSHER PENALTY AFTER STUDENT’S APPEAL CRITICIZED)

,

TRIAL JUDGE’S EXTENSIVE QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL.

The Second Department ordered a new trial because the trial judge conducted extensive questioning of witnesses:

Supreme Court conducted excessive and prejudicial questioning of trial witnesses, warranting a new trial. Although defense counsel did not object to the questioning of witnesses by the court, we reach this contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction …. . “[W]hile a trial judge may intervene in a trial to clarify confusing testimony and facilitate the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial, the court may not take on the function or appearance of an advocate'” … . “In last analysis, [the trial judge] should be guided by the principle that his [or her] function is to protect the record, not to make it” … . “[T]he line is crossed when the judge takes on either the function or appearance of an advocate at trial” … . Indeed, “even proper questions from trial judges present significant risks of prejudicial unfairness, particularly when the trial judge indulge[s] in an extended questioning’ of witnesses” … .

* * * …[T]he court’s improper interference with the conduct of the trial deprived the defendant of a fair trial, and a new trial is warranted … . People v Davis, 2017 NY Slip Op 01381, 2nd Dept 2-22-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (TRIAL JUDGE’S EXTENSIVE QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL)/JUDGES (CRIMINAL LAW, TRIAL JUDGE’S EXTENSIVE QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL)

, , ,

WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULING, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined the trial court should not have applied the collateral estoppel doctrine to preclude the People from introducing evidence the defendant used a firearm to threaten the robbery victim. The grand jury dismissed the robbery first count and indicted on robbery third. The trial court reasoned that the grand jury necessarily found the defendant did not have a weapon by refusing to indict on robbery first. The First Department held: (1) the article 78 proceeding seeking a writ of prohibition (brought by the People against the trial judge) was the appropriate remedy; and (2) the trial judge is prohibited from enforcing the order precluding evidence of the defendant’s possession of a weapon:

A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy, only available to prevent a court from either acting without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it otherwise has jurisdiction … . Prohibition is not available to review mere errors of law, even when the errors are truly egregious … .

“Although the distinction between legal errors and actions made in excess of authority is not always easily made, abuses of power may be identified by their impact on the entire proceeding as distinguished from an error in a proceeding itself” … . The trial court’s ruling in this case was an error that affected the entire proceeding and thus constituted an excess of the court’s authority. The ruling prevents the People from proving the element of force required under third degree robbery because the gun was the only evidence of force that was presented to the grand jury. The People cannot present different facts at trial in support of the indictment … . Although the court did not actually dismiss the third degree robbery charge, the charge cannot withstand a claim of legal insufficiency, because there are no other facts on which the prosecution can rely to prove force, a necessary element of the charge. * * *

A writ of prohibition will lie where a trial court’s erroneous ruling affects the proceeding in a conclusive manner, by terminating the case … . At bar, although the ruling did not actually terminate the case, it effectively terminated the ability of the People to prosecute the highest count in the indictment … . We therefore find that the court’s ruling is reviewable by way of a writ of prohibition. * * *

The Court of Appeals has recognized … that for policy reasons collateral estoppel is not as liberally applied in criminal prosecutions as in civil actions … . The rigid application of collateral estoppel must yield to society’s preeminent and overwhelming interest in ensuring the correctness of determinations of guilt or innocence … . “Thus, if … collateral estoppel ‘cannot practicably be followed if a necessary witness is to give truthful testimony, then [the doctrine] should not be applied'” … . Matter of Clark v Newbauer, 2017 NY Slip Op 01326, 1st Dept 2-21-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULING, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULING, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULING, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE)/JUDGES (CRIMINAL LAW, WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULING, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE)/PROHIBITION (CRIMINAL LAW, WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULING, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE)/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (CRIMINAL LAW, WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULING, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE)

,

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)

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