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
TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT INQUIRE INTO DEFENDANT’S SERIOUS REQUEST FOR ANOTHER ATTORNEY, CONVICTION REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).
Conviction Reversed on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Grounds
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONVICTION OF THE B MISDEMEANORS WITH WHICH HE WAS CHARGED WOULD RESULT IN DEPORTATION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL (CT APP).
DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY PURSUED AND DETAINED BASED UPON HIS DRINKING FROM A CONTAINER IN A PAPER BAG AND RUNNING INSIDE A NEARBY BUILDING; THE INTENT TO DEFRAUD WAS PROPERLY INFERRED FROM DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF BOTH REAL AND COUNTERFEIT BILLS, KEPT SEPARATELY ON HIS PERSON (CT APP).
PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT LIMITED THE RIGHT TO DEMAND ARBITRATION TO THE UNION, NOT THE FIRED EMPLOYEE (CT APP).
CONVERSION OF A HISTORIC LOWER MANHATTAN LANDMARK, A RARE CLOCK AND CLOCK TOWER, TO A LUXURY APARTMENT WAS PROPERLY APPROVED BY THE NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).
PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROSECUTOR’S INITIAL STATEMENT OF READINESS FOR TRIAL WAS ILLUSORY CLARIFIED.
Lump Sum Payments for Pending Workers’ Compensation Claims Made by Municipalities Choosing to Withdraw from a Workers’ Compensation Self-Insurance Fund Must Be Discounted to Present Value

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
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...