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
PLAINTIFF FELL GOING DOWN PERMANENT STEPS AFTER HE STEPPED OFF THE LADDER; THERE WAS NO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1)—NO FAILURE OR ABSENCE OF A SAFETY DEVICE (FIRST DEPT).
THE NONPARTY OPERATOR OF AN ANONYMOUS WEBSITE WHICH POSTED ALLEGEDLY DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS ABOUT RESPONDENT BUSINESS WAS ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN HER ANONYMITY PURSUANT TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT; HER MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AIMED AT REVEALING HER IDENTITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FISRT DEPT).
Tenant Entitled to Attorney’s Fees After Successfully Defending Landlord’s Holdover Action—Discretion to Deny Attorney’s Fees Should Be Used Sparingly Because of the Purpose of the Controlling Statute
Further Proceedings Are Stayed When Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw Is Granted
REPORT OF FIRE MARSHAL, WHO HAD NO INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF HIS INVESTIGATION INTO THE CAUSE OF THE FIRE, WAS ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO THE BUSINESS RECORD EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION CONCERNING THE METHODS OF SECURING A MOTORCYCLE HELMET PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF’S UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
SENTENCING JUDGE MAY HAVE MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THE MINIMUM PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS FIVE YEARS WHEN IT ACTUALLY WAS TWO AND A HALF YEARS, MATTER SENT BACK FOR RESENTENCING (FIRST DEPT).
RESPONDENT IN THIS CUSTODY AND VISITATION PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE WHETHER SHE HAS STANDING TO ASSERT PARENTAL RIGHTS IS ENTITLED, PURSUANT TO DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 237, TO ATTORNEY’S FEES PAID BY THE “MORE MONIED” PETITIONER; RESPONDENT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED TO BE A “PARENT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 237 FOR THE NARROW PURPOSE OF ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AT THIS PRELIMINARY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS (FIRST DEPT).

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

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