New Jersey reconsideration: 20 days for a final judgment, no deadline for an interlocutory order
New Jersey procedure · Last verified August 17, 2026
New Jersey has two reconsideration regimes, and which one you are in depends entirely on whether the order you dislike is final or interlocutory.
Get that wrong and you either miss a hard twenty-day deadline, or you brief an urgent motion that did not need to be urgent at all.
Final judgments and final orders: twenty days
R. 4:49-2 is one sentence carrying three separate requirements:
Except as otherwise provided by R. 1:13-1 (clerical errors), a motion for rehearing or reconsideration seeking to alter or amend a judgment or final order shall be served not later than 20 days after service of the judgment or order upon all parties by the party obtaining it. The motion shall state with specificity the basis on which it is made, including a statement of the matters or controlling decisions that counsel believes the court has overlooked or as to which it has erred, and shall have annexed thereto a copy of the judgment or final order sought to be reconsidered and a copy of the court's corresponding written opinion, if any.
The deadline. Twenty days, and the trigger is precise: service of the judgment or order upon all parties by the party who obtained it. Not the date of decision, not entry, not when you happened to see it. If the prevailing party has not served the order, the twenty days have not started — and conversely, serving it is how a winning party starts the clock running against the other side.
The content. The motion must "state with specificity the basis on which it is made", and the rule tells you what that basis looks like: matters or controlling decisions the court overlooked, or as to which it erred. That is a narrow frame. Reconsideration is not a second argument on the same material; it is an assertion that something specific was missed or got wrong.
The attachments. Two, and both are mandatory: a copy of the judgment or final order, and a copy of the court's corresponding written opinion, if any. Motions are returned for missing these.
Clerical errors are carved out and handled under R. 1:13-1 instead.
Interlocutory orders: a different rule entirely
R. 4:42-2(b) governs anything that has not disposed of the whole case:
In the absence of a direction authorized by paragraph (a), any order or form of decision which adjudicates fewer than all the claims as to all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims, and it shall be subject to revision at any time before the entry of final judgment in the sound discretion of the court in the interest of justice. To the extent possible, application for reconsideration shall be made to the trial judge who entered the order.
Three differences from R. 4:49-2, all significant:
- No deadline. The order is revisable "at any time before the entry of final judgment."
- A different standard. "In the sound discretion of the court in the interest of justice" — not the narrower overlooked-or-erred formulation.
- A routing instruction. "To the extent possible", the application goes to the judge who entered the order.
| Final judgment or final order | Interlocutory order | |
|---|---|---|
| Rule | R. 4:49-2 | R. 4:42-2(b) |
| Deadline | 20 days from service by the party obtaining it | none, until final judgment |
| Standard | matters or controlling decisions overlooked or erred | sound discretion, in the interest of justice |
| Attachments required | judgment/order + written opinion | not specified |
| Who hears it | the court | the trial judge who entered the order, to the extent possible |
Working out which one you have
R. 4:42-2(a) defines when a partial disposition becomes final, and it takes a certification:
If an order would be subject to process to enforce a judgment pursuant to R. 4:59 if it were final and if the trial court certifies that there is no just reason for delay of such enforcement, the trial court may direct the entry of final judgment upon fewer than all the claims as to all parties, but only in the following circumstances: (1) upon a complete adjudication of a separate claim; or (2) upon complete adjudication of all the rights and liabilities asserted in the litigation as to any party; or (3) where a partial summary judgment or other order for payment of part of a claim is awarded.
So an order disposing of one claim or one party is not final unless the court has certified no just reason for delay and directed entry of final judgment — and even then only in one of the three listed circumstances.
Absent that certification, paragraph (b) applies and you are in the no-deadline regime. This is the practical test: look for the certification. If it is not there, the order is interlocutory.
Why the distinction matters more than it looks
A defendant who loses a partial summary judgment motion and assumes R. 4:49-2 applies will rush a twenty-day motion built on the narrow overlooked-or-erred standard — when R. 4:42-2(b) would have let them come back later, on a more generous standard, with a better record.
A party who loses a genuinely final judgment and assumes it can revisit the issue "any time before final judgment" has simply missed the deadline.
How New Jersey compares
| New Jersey | New York | Michigan | Federal | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deadline, final judgment | 20 days from service | 30 days from notice of entry (reargue) | 21 days | 28 days |
| Deadline, interlocutory order | none | none | none | none |
| Standard, final | overlooked or erred | overlooked or misapprehended | palpable error | manifest error |
| Must attach the opinion | yes | no | no | no |
| Routed to the judge who ruled | yes, to the extent possible | yes | yes | yes |
| Clock starts on service by the winning party | yes | on notice of entry | on entry | on entry |
A short checklist
- Decide first whether the order is final. Look for a certification of no just reason for delay under R. 4:42-2(a); without it, the order is interlocutory.
- If it is final, find the date the prevailing party served it — that is when the twenty days start, not the decision date.
- Frame the motion around what was overlooked or erred, specifically. A restatement of your original argument is not what R. 4:49-2 asks for.
- Annex the judgment or order and the written opinion. Both are required.
- If the order is interlocutory, you are not on a clock — but bring the application to the judge who entered the order, to the extent possible.
- Use the right standard in your brief. Interest of justice for interlocutory orders; overlooked or erred for final ones.
- If you won, serve the order — that is what starts your opponent's twenty days.
- For a clerical error, use R. 1:13-1 instead; it is carved out of R. 4:49-2.
Where these rules live
- N.J. Ct. R. 4:42-2 — Judgment Upon Multiple Claims; Reconsideration of Interlocutory Orders
- N.J. Ct. R. 4:46-1 — Time for Making, Filing, and Serving Motion
- N.J. Ct. R. 4:49-1 — Motion for New Trial
- N.J. Ct. R. 4:49-2 — Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment or Final Order
- N.J. Ct. R. 4:50-1 — Relief from Judgment or Order
This page explains what the rules say. It isn't legal advice. R. 1:13-1, which governs clerical errors and is carved out of R. 4:49-2, sits in Part I of the Rules of Court, outside this site's New Jersey corpus.