Wife obtained a judgment against her divorcing husband for $ 750,000.  Her attorney took his time entering the judgment, and violated 22 NYCRR 202.48(a), which provides 60 days after the entry of an order directing settlement of the judgment to submit a proposed judgment.  Holding?  Plaintiff loses her judgment!

Farkas v Farkas
2007 NY Slip Op 03762
Decided on May 1, 2007
Appellate Division, First Department

"The Court of Appeals has recently made it clear that "statutory time frames – like court-ordered time frames – are not options, they are requirements, to be taken seriously by the parties" (Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725, 726 [2004] [citation omitted], following Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]). Thus, where a statute or court rule prescribes a limited time frame in which to take a procedural step in litigation, and states that a party’s failure to act within that time frame will be excused only upon a showing of "good cause," such a showing requires demonstrating, as the dissent puts it, "more . . . than [the] merit . . . [of] the underlying application and a lack of prejudice to the other party." This bench is unanimous in holding that this principle applies in the instant case, in which plaintiff failed to comply with the 60-day time frame for the submission of a judgment to the court for signature (Uniform Rules for Trial Cts [22 NYCRR]
§ 202.48[a], [b]). Because plaintiff has failed to show good cause for her failure to comply with the time frame set forth in the Uniform Rules, we are constrained to reverse and vacate the judgment. "

For the entire case.