From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Citibank v. Velazquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 11, 2001
284 A.D.2d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted May 15, 2001.

June 11, 2001.

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), dated July 26, 2000, as denied that branch of its motion which was for leave to enter a deficiency judgment against the defendant Clemencia Velazquez, a/k/a Clemencia Rubiano.

Relin, Goldstein Crane, LLP, Rochester, N.Y. (Joseph M. Shur of counsel), for appellant.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff's unopposed motion to confirm the referee's report of sale, and for leave to enter a deficiency judgment against the mortgagors, including the defendant Clemencia Velazquez, a/k/a Clemencia Rubiano (hereinafter Rubiano), was granted by order dated April 21, 1999, which directed the plaintiff to submit judgment on notice to the Clerk of the County of Westchester. The plaintiff failed to submit the proposed judgment within 60 days, as directed, and the Supreme Court, therefore, denied that branch of its subsequent motion which was for leave to enter a deficiency judgment against Rubiano, on the ground that it had been abandoned.

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48, an order or judgment which is directed to be settled or submitted on notice must be submitted for signature within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order or judgment be settled or submitted. A party who fails to submit the order or judgment within the 60-day time period will be deemed to have abandoned the action or motion, absent good cause shown. The plaintiff contends that 22 NYCRR 202.48 is not applicable here, relying upon Funk v. Barry ( 89 N.Y.2d 364). The Court of Appeals in Funk held that the plaintiff, who had obtained a verdict for $5,000, plus interest to run from a specified date, had not abandoned the action by failing to submit a proposed judgment for entry within 60 days from the verdict.

In this case, however, unlike Funk, the plaintiff was expressly directed to submit the judgment on notice to the County Clerk. In our view, consistent with Funk, where the court's decision contains a directive to submit or settle an order or judgment, as here, the 60-day rule in 22 NYCRR 202.48 applies. Furthermore, we find that the plaintiff did not show good cause for the lengthy delay in filing the deficiency judgment (see, Brady v. Brady, 271 A.D.2d 563; Lawton v. Lawton, 239 A.D.2d 866). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to enter a deficiency judgment against Rubiano.


Summaries of

Citibank v. Velazquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 11, 2001
284 A.D.2d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Citibank v. Velazquez

Case Details

Full title:CITIBANK, N.A., APPELLANT, v. LUIS FERNANDO VELAZQUEZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 11, 2001

Citations

284 A.D.2d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
726 N.Y.S.2d 678

Citing Cases

Russo v. Russo

When a party is directed in a decision of the court to settle or submit an order or a judgment on notice,…

Plattsburgh v. Rainbow Conces

When City Court granted the directed verdict, it was not reduced to a written decision. Since the applicable…