You are here: / / THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NO PARTY REQUESTED...

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NO PARTY REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, granted relief which was not requested by any party:

The Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, directed the plaintiffs to prepare documents for a closing and to schedule a closing, or to pay to the defendant 27% of the profits of the plaintiff corporations. “Generally, a court may, in its discretion, grant relief that is warranted by the facts plainly appearing on the papers on both sides, if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party”… . Here, no party sought the relief granted, which could be prejudicial to the appealing plaintiffs … . Newburgh Commercial Dev. Corp. v Cappelletti, 2023 NY Slip Op 02670, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: A judge’s power to grant relief sua sponte (relief not requested) is limited and such relief will not be affirmed if any party has been prejudiced.

 

You might also like
TRIAL JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURORS AFTER THEY RETURNED AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT WERE INADEQUATE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT.
THE CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).
MORTGAGE COMPANY’S PROOF OF STANDING AND MAILING OF RPAPL 1304 NOTICE INSUFFICIENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE RULINGS ON CUSTODY AND MOTHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE BEFORE COMPLETING THE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
Supreme Court Did Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction In an Action Seeking Compensation for an Alleged Unconstitutional Taking of Land Based Upon the Denial of a Subdivision Application—the Court of Claims Has Exclusive Jurisdiction
DEFENDANT OPENED THE DRIVER’S-SIDE DOOR OF HIS PARKED CAR WITHOUT MAKING SURE IT WAS SAFE TO DO SO, A VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, AND PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO AVOID STRIKING DEFENDANT’S CAR; PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY AND THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
PEOPLE’S REQUEST TO WITHHOLD DISCOVERY UNTIL FIFTEEN DAYS BEFORE A HEARING OR TRIAL, FOR THE WITNESSES’ SAFETY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Proof of Lack of Constructive Notice Insufficient.

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

ALTHOUGH FATHER’S GIRLFRIEND HAD ONLY SEEN THE ABUSED CHILD TWO OR THREE... AN ANSWER OR A COMPLAINT VERIFIED BY AN ATTORNEY DOES NOT PROVE THE CONTENTS...