You are here: / / Doctrine of Equitable Mootness for Bankruptcy Ruling ​
,

Doctrine of Equitable Mootness for Bankruptcy Ruling ​

In this contract action, the issue at the heart of the case before the Second Department was the preclusive effect of a bankruptcy court ruling and the doctrine of “equitable mootness” which prohibits disturbing a bankruptcy plan already implemented.  The easiest way to convey the nature of the legal issues in the case is to quote the relevant discussions in the Second Department’s decision:

In light of authority holding that a court should apply the rules of res judicata followed in the jurisdiction that rendered the earlier decision …, we apply federal res judicata law in determining whether the doctrine of res judicata bars this action … .

Under federal res judicata law, subsequent litigation is prohibited if a prior court ruling ” was (1) a final judgment on the merits, (2) by a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) in a case involving the same parties or their privies, and (4) involving the same cause of action” … . This rule applies with full force to matters decided by the bankruptcy courts, including those concerning Chapter 11 reorganization … . Moreover, in the bankruptcy context, the court must also consider whether an independent judgment in a separate proceeding would ” impair, destroy, challenge, or invalidate the enforceability or effectiveness'” of the reorganization plan … .

The plaintiffs contend that there was no final judgment on the merits because the appeal from the 2009 New York bankruptcy court order was dismissed on the ground of equitable mootness. Equitable mootness is invoked to avoid disturbing a reorganization plan once implemented …. When a plan has been substantially consummated, an appeal should be dismissed unless several requirements, the most important of which is that the appellant sought a stay of confirmation, are satisfied … .

Here, the District Court dismissed the appeal from the 2009 New York bankruptcy court order because the Kmart reorganization plan had been implemented and RM 18 had failed to seek a stay of the confirmation. Once the appeal was dismissed as moot, the 2009 New York bankruptcy court order became final …. Since there was no vacatur of the 2009 New York bankruptcy court order, it has preclusive effect … . …[T]he plaintiffs may not maintain the present litigation, which challenges [the] final adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction … .  RM 18 Corp. v Bank of NY Mellon Trust Co., N.A., 2013 NY Slip Op 01541, 2011-o9112, Index No 15992/10, 2nd Dept. 3-13-13

 

 

You might also like
ARGUMENTS FIRST RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY REJECTED (SECOND DEPT).
Provisions in Personnel Handbook Refuted Petitioner’s Allegation that Respondent Failed to Follow the Disciplinary Procedures in the Handbook Prior to Terminating Petitioner/In Addition, Limitations on the Right to Terminate an At-Will Employee Will Not Be Inferred Solely from Policy Manuals or the Existence of an Internal Grievance Procedure
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE POTENTIAL COMPLICATIONS OF A DENTAL PROCEDURE, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING OF A CONSENT FORM (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN AREA WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN SLIP AND FALL CASE.
PLAINTFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE MOTION COURT BEFORE GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM BRINGING FUTURE PARENTAL ACCESS PETITIONS WITHOUT COURT APPROVAL (SECOND DEPT).
THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR FILING AND SERVING A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY FOR WRONGFUL DEATH RUNS FROM THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR; HERE THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS TIMELY FOR THE WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSE OF ACTION; HOWEVER THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING AND PREIMPACT TERROR RUNS FROM THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT; THE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED AS UNTIMELY FOR THOSE TWO CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiffs Entitled to Return of Down Payment When Mortgage Application Denied, In Spite of Failure to Apply for “No Income Check” Mortgage

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Taser or Stun Gun Is Not a “Dangerous Instrument” for Purposes of Burglary... Res Ipsa Loquitur Is Rarely a Basis for Summary Judgment/Questions of Fact About...