New York Law Journal, Vol. 243, 2010
7 Pages Posted: 9 Jul 2010 Last revised: 23 Jul 2010
Date Written: May 17, 2010
Uniform Rule 202.48 requires the submission of certain proposed orders or judgments for signature by the judge within 60 days from the decision. Even if a party is entitled to relief, the victory can be snatched away for failure to comply with Uniform Rule 202.48. However, the rule has an exception where “good cause” exists for a delay beyond the 60 days. This article tracks the development of the “good cause” defense for failing to comply with Uniform Rule 202.48 by analyzing the decisions beginning with Feldman v. New York City Transit Authority and carries through to the 2008 Court of Appeals decision in Farkas v. Farkas. The analysis shows division in application of the rule and many unresolved issues that continue to linger and must be addressed.
Keywords: Uniform Rule 202:48, good cause, proposed orders, judgments
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Connors, Patrick M., Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory: Uniform Rule 202:48 (May 17, 2010). New York Law Journal, Vol. 243, 2010; Albany Law School Research Paper No. 10-11. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1636428