(a) Requests for Findings. Before the case is finally submitted, the court shall afford the parties an opportunity to submit requests for findings of fact. Each request shall be numbered and so phrased that the court may conveniently pass upon it.
§ 4213.Decision of the court.
Article 42. Trial by the Court · Last amended 2009 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceSection 4213 requires the court to let parties submit numbered requests for findings of fact before a bench trial ends, lets the decision be oral or written so long as it states the essential facts and itemizes any damage award, and gives the court sixty days to decide.
Full Text of CPLR 4213
(b) Form of Decision. The decision of the court may be oral or in writing and shall state the facts it deems essential. In any action brought to recover damages for personal injury, injury to property, or wrongful death, a decision awarding damages shall specify the applicable elements of special and general damages upon which the award is based and the amount assigned to each element, including but not limited to medical expenses, dental expenses, podiatric expenses, loss of earnings, impairment of earning ability, and pain and suffering. In a medical, dental or podiatric malpractice action, commenced on or after July twenty-sixth, two thousand three, the court’s decision as to future damages shall be itemized in accordance with subdivision (d) of rule forty-one hundred eleven of this chapter. In any action brought to recover damages for personal injury, injury to property or wrongful death, other than a medical, dental or podiatric malpractice action commenced on or after July twenty-sixth, two thousand three, the court’s decision as to future damages shall be itemized in accordance with subdivision (e) of rule forty-one hundred eleven of this chapter.
Plain-English Summary
Section 4213 covers how a judge, rather than a jury, wraps up a bench trial. Before the case is finally submitted, the court has to give the parties a chance to submit requests for findings of fact, each one numbered and phrased so the court can act on it without difficulty. The court is not required to grant or deny each request individually; it only has to state the facts it considers essential to the decision, whether that decision is delivered orally or in writing.
When the court's decision awards damages in a personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death case, the decision has to itemize the award the same way rule 4111 requires a jury to, breaking the total down by category and separating damages already incurred from damages still to come. Which formula applies, the more detailed one built for medical, dental, and podiatric malpractice cases or the simpler one for other personal injury and property cases, turns on the type of case and, for malpractice claims, when it was commenced.
The court also works against a clock. It has to render its decision within sixty days after the case is finally submitted, or within sixty days after a motion under rule 4403 challenging a referee's report or an advisory verdict, whichever comes later, unless the parties agree to extend that time themselves.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I ask the judge to make specific findings of fact in a bench trial?
Yes, before the case is finally submitted, the court must give you a chance to submit numbered requests for findings of fact.
Does the judge have to rule on every request for findings I submit?
No, the court only has to state the facts it deems essential to its decision; it does not have to pass on each request individually.
Does the judge have to itemize damages the way a jury does?
Yes, in personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death cases, the court's decision awarding damages must itemize the elements of the award the same way rule 4111 requires of a jury verdict.
How long does a judge have to decide a bench trial in New York?
Sixty days after the case is finally submitted, or sixty days after a motion under rule 4403, whichever is later, unless the parties agree to extend the time.
Can the judge give an oral decision instead of a written one?
Yes, section 4213 allows the decision to be oral or in writing, as long as it states the facts the court considers essential.
What happens if the judge misses the sixty-day deadline?
The statute does not provide for a new trial on that basis alone; the time limit functions as a directive to the court rather than a rule that undoes a late decision.
Advisory Committee Notes
Subd (a) of this section is derived from former § 439. Subd (b) requires the decision to state only the facts deemed essential, which may be done by granting requests for findings or by embodying them in the decision. Therefore, requests need not be passed upon. Consequently, the last sentence of § 439, which stated that requests which were not granted were deemed denied, has been omitted as unnecessary. But cf. Cohen & Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals 618 (1952). This subdivision requires that requests be submitted before case is finally submitted. This is in accord with CPA § 439.
Subd (b) of this section represents the law under the second sentence of CPA § 440; the exception for nonsuits is omitted because it seems self-evident. The first and third sentences of § 440 have been omitted as unnecessary. The first sentence and the first phrase of the third sentence are unnecessary because, under this subdivision, no motion for judgment need be made in a case tried by the court. The final phrase of the third sentence, which stated that “such decision shall not be deemed to be the verdict of a jury,” was included in the amendment of § 440 which permitted a short decision (Laws 1936, c 1915); it was intended to prevent such a decision from being given the effect of a jury verdict for purposes of appeal. During the period between 1894 and 1903, “a decision stating concisely the grounds upon which the issues have been decided” was authorized by § 1022 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it was held that, for the purpose of an appeal, such a decision was equivalent to a general jury verdict. Amherst College v Ritch, 151 NY 282, 45 NE 876 (1897). Subsequent changes in the power of the Court of Appeals to review facts make it doubtful whether the phrase was necessary even in 1936. See Note, 22 Cornell LQ 285 (1937). Under former law respecting appeals and CPLR § 5501 it is clear that such a statement is superfluous. Cf. § 5712(b) and (c).
The fourth sentence of CPA § 440 is covered in CPLR § 5520 and the last sentence is treated in article 81. The former New York practice of requiring the court to state only the facts essential to its decision has been retained in this section. See notes to subd (a). It differs from the practice under Federal rule 52(a) and in most other jurisdictions, where a separate statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law is required. See 5 Moore, Federal Practice 2605 (2d ed 1951). Separate findings of fact were required in New York between 1903 and 1936. Laws 1903, c 85; Laws 1936, c 915. For the history of the requirement in New York, see 2 NY Jud Council Rep 203–212 (1936). The requirement that courts make specific findings of fact has been condemned as useless, time-consuming and a basis for technical reversals. Sunderland, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Cases Where Juries Are Waived, 4 U Chi L Rev 218, 229–232 (1937); Yankwich, Findings in the Light of the Recent Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 8 FRD 271, 291–295 (1936); but see Clark & Stone, Review of Findings of Fact, 4 U Chi L Rev 190, 205 (1937); cf. United States v Forness, 125 F2d 928, 942 (2d Cir 1942).
Subd (c) of this section is based on the New Jersey rule. NJ R Civ P 1:30-2. However, the period of time is longer than that in New Jersey, and it is extended by a motion to confirm or reject the report of a referee to report or an advisory verdict pursuant to CPLR § 4403. See notes to § 4403. Under former practice, the court might have rendered its decision within 60 days after the adjournment of the term at which the issues were tried CPA § 442. The provision that a new trial might be granted on the ground that the time limit had been exceeded has been deleted; granting a new trial seems a poor remedy for a tardy decision, especially when the court is specifically empowered to deny a new trial on condition that the decision be rendered within a specified additional period. The net effect of this subdivision is precatory—which is the practical effect under the former law.
Amendment History
Add, L 1962, ch 308, eff Sept 1, 1963; amd, L 1963, ch 532, § 20, eff Sept 1, 1963; L 1976, ch 955, § 9; L 1984, ch 701, § 4; L 1985, ch 294, § 7; L 1985, ch 760, § 6; L 1986, ch 485, § 8; L 1986, ch 682, § 8, eff July 30, 1986; L 2009, ch 494, § 6 (Part F), eff Nov 12, 2009.
Source & verification. Provision text, History, and Advisory
Committee Notes are reproduced verbatim from the Consolidated Laws of New York.
Last verified July 21, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: judge's decision deadline New York civil trialfindings of fact request New York bench trialsixty day decision rule New York judgeitemized damages judge decision New York