You are here: / / CPLR 5015 Power to Vacate a Final Judgment after Reversal of a Companion...
,

CPLR 5015 Power to Vacate a Final Judgment after Reversal of a Companion Case Is Discretionary

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott (with a dissent), determined that Supreme Court had the discretion to vacate a final $4.4 million judgment against Port Authority based upon the subsequent Court of Appeals reversal of a companion case (Ruiz) holding Port Authority immune from lawsuits stemming from the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.  Supreme Court had vacated the judgment, but appeared to do so under the assumption the vacation was mandated by statute (CPLR 5015).  The Court of Appeals sent the matter back to Supreme Court, explaining that the court had the power to exercise its discretion:

Although a court determination from which an appeal has not been taken should “remain inviolate,” that rule applies “[a]bsent the sort of circumstances mentioned in CPLR 5015” ….  Moreover, as Professor Siegel has observed, “[i]f a judgment for which preclusive effect is sought is itself based on an earlier judgment . . ., and the earlier one has been vacated or reversed or otherwise undone, it is of course divested of its finality and the remedy to cancel the second judgment is a motion to vacate it on the ground of the undoing of the first” (Siegel, NY Prac § 444 at 776 [5th ed 2011] [emphasis supplied], citing CPLR 5015 [a] [5]).  Subdivision 5 of section 5015 (a) is applicable where the reversed, modified or vacated judgment or order is the basis for a later judgment – not where it merely compelled the result as a matter of collateral estoppel or stare decisis, but where it was actually entered in the same lawsuit as, and led directly to, the later judgment.  Thus, section 5015 (a) (5) applies in a case like this one where a joint trial on liability results in a single order entered in two cases, and where, after a separate trial on damages in one of the cases, that order is reversed on appeal.  * * *

Here, Supreme Court’s only finding was that this Court’s decision in Ruiz “eviscerate[d] any judgment, holding or finding of tortious liability on behalf of the Port Authority,” and therefore “require[d]” Supreme Court to find the Port Authority insulated from tortious liability pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (5).  It also appeared to believe that once the Port Authority had demonstrated that the Ruiz holding reversed the earlier liability determination to which Nash was a party, Supreme Court had no choice but to grant the Port Authority’s vacatur motion.  That was error. Nash v Port Authority, 238, CtApp 11-26-13

 

You might also like
THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED WITHOUT DISCUSSION; JUDGE RIVERA IN A DISSENTING OPINION JOINED BY JUDGE WILSON WOULD HAVE REVERSED ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (CT APP). ​
​ IN A DISPUTE INVOLVING THE TELECAST RIGHTS FOR TWO MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL TEAMS, THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED ITS POWERS, WHICH WERE SPELLED OUT IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, BY IMPOSING A MONEY JUDGMENT; THE ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS AFFIRMED BUT THE MONEY JUDGMENT WAS VACATED (CT APP).
Failure to Turn Over to the Defendant Grand Jury Minutes Use by the Judge in SORA Risk Calculation Violated Due Process
THE STATUTE PROHIBITING SEX OFFENDERS ON PAROLE FROM BEING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF SCHOOL GROUNDS APPLIES TO YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS (CT APP). ​
Criteria for Punitive Damages Award
Although the Landlord Can Sue Pursuant to the Accelerated Rent Clause and Is Not Under a Duty to Mitigate, the Out-of-Possession Tenant Should Be Afforded a Hearing On Whether the Accelerated Rent/Liquidated Damages Clause, Under the Facts, Constitutes an Unenforceable Penalty Because It Results In Recovery Grossly Disproportionate to the Landlord’s Actual Damages
QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) LADDER-FALL CASE; APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED; EXTENSIVE THREE-JUDGE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP). ​
CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP).

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Department of Homeless Services’ New Eligibility Procedure Triggered the Notice... Court’s Refusal to Give the Circumstantial Evidence Jury Instruction Required...