On February 8, 2023, the Second Department issued a decision in Lola Roberts Beauty Salon, Inc. v. Able Motor Cars Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op. 00657, excusing the failure timely to settle an order, explaining:
By notice of motion dated April 10, 2019, Able moved to dismiss the complaint in Action No. 1 insofar as asserted against it as abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48(b) on the ground that Lola Roberts failed to settle the judgment within 60 days after the Supreme Court issued its decision after trial. Lola Roberts opposed Able’s motion, contending that it showed good cause for its failure to settle the judgment based on Able’s posttrial motion and because it was unclear from the decision which party was required to settle the judgment. By order dated November 15, 2019, the court granted the motion. Lola Roberts appeals.
Proposed orders 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. Failure to submit the order timely shall be deemed an abandonment of the motion or action, unless for good cause shown. These provisions are not applicable where the decision does not explicitly direct that the proposed judgment or order be settled or submitted for signature. Upon the court’s direction to settle or submit an order or a judgment, the party that prevailed on the underlying decision is obligated to do so. Here, contrary to Lola Roberts’s contention, it was the prevailing party on the underlying decision and was obligated to timely settle the judgment.
Nevertheless, under the circumstances of this case, Able’s motion to set aside the decision, which was pending until shortly before Able moved to dismiss the complaint in Action No. 1 insofar as asserted against it as abandoned, among other things, constituted good cause for Lola Roberts’s failure to timely settle the judgment. Further, Lola Roberts’s actions were devoid of any intent to abandon its claim, the record evinces a lack of prejudice to Able, and this result will bring the proper repose to the proceedings and avoid waste of judicial resources.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting Able’s motion to dismiss the complaint in Action No. 1 insofar as asserted against it as abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48(b).
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).