On February 3, 2026, the First Department issued a decision in Shanklin v. Wilhelmina Models, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op. 00480, holding that a years-long delay in seeking an order of class certification did not bar the ultimate request for that order, explaining:
A prior order, same court, different Justice, entered May 12, 2020, granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification as to two of the proposed classes — one with respect to Next and the other as to Wilhelmina — asserting Labor Law claims that accrued on or after October 24, 2007. The court directed plaintiffs’ counsel to e-file a proposed order certifying classes as authorized after a meet and confer where the parties would attempt to agree upon the form of the proposed order. The court did not check the boxes indicating “settle order” or “submit order” on the form.
Over the course of the next four years the parties engaged in mediation and merits discovery, conducted over 17 depositions, and plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint. There is no dispute that during this time plaintiffs never submitted a proposed order certifying the classes.
In January 2025, plaintiffs requested a Commercial Division Rule 24 (Uniform Rules for Trial Courts [the Uniform Rules pre-motion conference for leave to file a motion for court approval of the form of class notice and for an order defining the classes. Supreme Court conducted an on-the-record pre-motion conference, after which it entered the class certification orders.
Section 202.48 of the Uniform Rules mandates vacatur of a class certification order only where the underlying decision directs a party to submit or settle an order. Here, the May 12, 2020 order contained no such directive and the boxes labeled “settle order” and “submit order” were not checked by the court.
In any event, Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that plaintiffs established good cause for their delay in submitting a proposed order certifying the classes and that there was clearly no intention to abandon the action based on the course of conduct by all parties in the litigation. Over the more than four years since the May 2020 class certification order, the parties conducted mediation and merits discovery on class issues and defendants repeatedly acknowledged in pleadings and correspondence, including with the court, that the classes were certified. None of the parties believed that plaintiffs abandoned class action status based on their failure to submit a further proposed class certification order within 60 days of the notice of entry of the May 2020 order. Moreover, defendants have cited no prejudice from the delay in filing the proposed class certification order.
(Internal citations omitted).