COURT RULES - ENTRY OF JUDGMENTS - SIGNATURE - PROPOSED JUDGMENT - PROPOSED
ORDER - SETTLEMENT
THE 60-DAY TIME LIMIT FOR THE SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED JUDGMENTS FOR SIGNATURE
APPLIES ONLY WHERE THE COURT'S DECISION CONTAINS DIRECTION THAT THE ORDER
IS TO BE SETTLED OR SUBMITTED ON NOTICE BEFORE IT IS ENTERED.
] | [ISSUE & DISPOSITION
| [AUTHORITIES CITED
] | [COMMENTARY
Section 202.48 of the Uniform Rules for the New York State Trial Courts
(N.Y. CODES, RULES, REGS. § 202.48 (Consol. 1993)) provides that "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
signing and filing of the decision directing that the order be submitted."
(emphasis supplied.) Plaintiff received a $5,000 judgment, plus interest,
in an action for conversion. Eleven months after the court's verdict, Plaintiff's
attorney submitted a proposed judgment for entry. Defendant objects that
the submission was untimely because the 60-day time limit of section 202.48
was past. But Plaintiff contends that the 60-day limit does not apply to
its proposed judgment because its proposal was not directed to be settled
nor submitted on notice. The New York Court of Appeals heard the appeal
because there was a split among the Appellate Divisions as to whether the
60-day time limit applies to proposed judgments where the court has given
no direction to submit or settle the order.
ISSUE & DISPOSITION
Whether the 60-day limit for the submission of proposed judgments for signature
contained in section 202.48 applies where the court's decision contains
no direction to submit or settle the order.
No. The 60-day limit applies only to proposed judgments where the court
directs the order to be settled or submitted on notice before it is entered.
Cases Cited by the Court
Donovan v. DiPietro, 195 A.D.2d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993).
Helfant v. Sobkowski, 174 A.D.2d 340 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991).
Hickson v. Gardner, 134 A.D.2d 930 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987).
Other Sources Cited by the Court
State of the Law Before Funk v. Barry
Whether the 60-day time limit for the submission of proposed judgments
for signature contained in section 202.48 applied to a proposed order or
judgment reflecting the disposition of a motion or matter was unsettled
prior to Funk v. Barry
. The uncertainty was reflected by the split
in authority among the Appellate Division Departments.
The First and Second Department did not apply section 202.48 unless
the judge's decision directed that the judgment be submitted for the court's
signature. (See Donovan v. DiPietro , 195 A.D.2d 589 (N.Y. App.
Div. 1993); Helfant v. Sobkowski, 174 A.D.2d 340 (N.Y. App. Div.
1991). Conversely, the Fourth Department applied the 60-day rule even where
there was no direction to submit or settle the order and where the clerk
was only required to enter judgment from the court's minutes. (See Hickson
v. Gardner, 134 A.D.2d 930 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987) ).
Effect of Funk v. Barry on Current Law
The court in Funk settles the uncertainty and holds that section 202.48
does not apply to decisions that do not contain a submit or settle directive,
nor does it govern the flow of entry process. The court notes that by its
plain terms, section 202.48 addresses the situation where the party is
expressly directed to submit or settle an order or judgment but is silent
with respect to decisions that do not contain a directive to submit or
settle. The court states that the rule's purpose is to prevent delay in
judicial dispositions resulting from a party's failure to comply with a
court's directive to draw and summit a proposed order or judgment. Thus,
the rule does not apply where there is no further court involvement in
the drafting process. Furthermore, the Court explains that the language
of section 202.48 indicates the legislature chose not to place time restrictions
on completion of ministerial recording functions.
Now that this procedural issue has been settled, it remains to be seen
if judges will respond by more frequently making the affirmative direction
to submit or settle orders thus implicating the 60-day time limit.
Survey of the Law in Other Jurisdictions
This procedural issue has not been raised in other jurisdictions.
Quentin C. Faust, 97
Joshua D. Fuller, 98
H. Marlow Green, 97
Pamela T. Harris, 98
Farah Mollo, 97
Phillip M. Pippenger, 98
Jared B. S. Steele, 98