Case Name: Qamar Zaman et al., Appellants, v. Sneh Prabha Shukla et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1998-03-02
Citations: 248 A.D.2d 379
Docket Number: 
Parties: Qamar Zaman et al., Appellants, v Sneh Prabha Shukla et al., Respondents.
Judges: Sullivan, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 248
Pages: 379–380

Head Matter:
Qamar Zaman et al., Appellants, v Sneh Prabha Shukla et al., Respondents.
[669 NYS2d 845]

Opinion:
—In an action, inter alia, for an accounting, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), dated January 7, 1997, which denied their motion to hold the defendant in contempt.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
More than one and one-half years after the conclusion of a trial during which the court found in favor of the plaintiffs in their action, inter alia, for an accounting, the plaintiffs moved for an order of contempt against the defendants for the failure to comply with the court's determination, made on the record on the last day of trial. The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that because the plaintiffs had failed to submit an order or judgment, as the court had directed, they had abandoned the action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48.
In relevant part, 22 NYCRR 202.48 (a) provides that where an order or judgment is directed to be settled, proposed orders or judgments must be submitted for signature within 60 days after the decision is rendered. Under 22 NYCRR 202.48 (b), the failure to timely submit the order or judgment shall be deemed an abandonment of the motion or action, unless good cause is shown. The plaintiffs have not offered any reason for their failure to timely submit a judgment as directed. Therefore, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the motion (see, 22 NYCRR 202.48 [b]).
Sullivan, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.