Opinion
October 11, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.).
In a decision entered on or about September 3, 1985, the court denied plaintiff's motion for reargument. Plaintiff moved for an order deeming the court's decision abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48 since defendant failed to enter an order or judgment. The court correctly denied the motion since section 202.48 is inapplicable where the court did not direct settlement of an order (Bell v. New York Higher Educ. Assistance Corp., 158 A.D.2d 305), and the "deemed abandoned" provision of the rule is only directed at successful movants (Seeman v. Seeman, 154 A.D.2d 584). Nor is there merit to plaintiff's contention that the court erred in denying his motion for an order of recusal. The court acted within its discretion in denying the motion since plaintiff failed to prove that there was an extrajudicial source that biased the court (People v. Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403). Lastly, in light of plaintiff's palpable abuse of judicial process, the court was well within its discretion in requiring that plaintiff obtain the court's permission before making any further motions (Sassower v. Signorelli, 99 A.D.2d 358).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Ross, Kassal, Wallach and Smith, JJ.