Rotbert v. Rotbert

140 A.D.3d 672, 33 N.Y.S.3d 732
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 30, 2016
Docket1642 312978/05
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 672 (Rotbert v. Rotbert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rotbert v. Rotbert, 140 A.D.3d 672, 33 N.Y.S.3d 732 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Matthew F. Cooper, J.), entered May 7, 2015, which granted defendant’s motion to reopen the judgment of divorce, dated January 12, 2015, to the extent of vacating the judgment and dismissing the case for failure to prosecute, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Irrespective of the applicability of CPLR 3216 or whether the numerous conditions precedent to dismissal therein were satisfied prior to dismissal here, the untimely submission of the proposed judgment of divorce violated the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 202.48, which provides, in pertinent part, that “[p]roposed 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” and that “[fjailure to submit the order or judgment timely shall be deemed an abandonment of the motion or action, unless for good cause shown.”

It is clear from the December 5, 2007 transcript that the court directed plaintiff to settle judgment, which he failed to do. Furthermore, with respect to the seven-year delay, the court found that there was no good cause shown as plaintiff had failed to provide any explanation for the delay. Accordingly, the court was correct in vacating the erroneously signed judgment of divorce and dismissing the case as abandoned.

*673 We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pirzada v. Pirzada
2025 NY Slip Op 04665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Bove v. Bove
2020 NY Slip Op 07531 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
140 A.D.3d 672, 33 N.Y.S.3d 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rotbert-v-rotbert-nyappdiv-2016.