You are here: / / COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, VACATE ITS DECISION AND...
,

COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, VACATE ITS DECISION AND REINSTATE A 2014 JUDGMENT WHERE NO REQUEST THAT COULD FORM THE BASIS OF THAT ACTION WAS MADE IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that Supreme Court did not have the authority to, sua sponte, vacate its prior decision and order and reinstate a 2014 judgment. The motion papers did not request any relief that could be the basis of the court’s action:

“[A] trial court has no revisory or appellate jurisdiction, sua sponte, to vacate its own order or judgment” … . Although “a court may grant relief[] pursuant to a general prayer contained in the notice of motion . . . ” … , no such clause was contained in plaintiff’s notice of motion. In the absence of any cross motion from the defendants, or any other kind of request for vacatur of the court’s prior order decision and prior order and reinstatement of the prior judgment, the court erred in doing so on its own initiative. Howell v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 07178, First Dept 10-25-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, VACATE ITS DECISION AND REINSTATE A 2014 JUDGMENT WHERE NO REQUEST THAT COULD FORM THE BASIS OF THAT ACTION WAS MADE IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FIRST DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, VACATE ITS DECISION AND REINSTATE A 2014 JUDGMENT WHERE NO REQUEST THAT COULD FORM THE BASIS OF THAT ACTION WAS MADE IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FIRST DEPT))/JUDGES (COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, VACATE ITS DECISION AND REINSTATE A 2014 JUDGMENT WHERE NO REQUEST THAT COULD FORM THE BASIS OF THAT ACTION WAS MADE IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
THE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE WAS MADE MORE THAN 15 DAYS AFTER THE DEMAND TO CHANGE VENUE; THE 15-DAY TIME-LIMIT IS STRICTLY ENFORCED AND THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT). ​
​Monetary Award to Compensate Fraud Victims Ordered by a Czech Court in a Criminal Fraud Prosecution Entitled to Enforcement in New York as a “Foreign Country Judgment”
PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY CAUSED BY AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT IN AN OUTSIDE BASKETBALL COURT.
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TRIP AND FALL IN TREE WELL NEAR THE SIDEWALK, THE TREE WELL IS NOT UNDER THE PROPERTY OWNER’S CONTROL (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BUS PASSENGER WAS INJURED WHEN THE BUS DRIVER TOOK ACTION IN AN EMERGENCY; DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
FACULTY MEMBERS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST UNIVERSITY BASED UPON POLICIES DESCRIBED IN THE FACULTY HANDBOOK.
NOTICE PURPORTING TO DISSOLVE A PARTNERSHIP WAS A NULLITY BECAUSE IT DID NOT COMPORT WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).
Effect of “Notwithstanding” Clause; Criteria for Reformation of Contract

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

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK... THE ARBITRATOR-PANEL DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER A PARTIAL FINAL...