Friends of Keuka Lake, Inc. v. DeMay
Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the prior order of the court approving a settlement agreement between defendant property owners and defendants Town Board of the Town of Jerusalem and related Town officials that resolved a number of lawsuits over the tax assessments and the regulation and use of lakefront property known as "Keuka Bluff Subdivision”. In their submissions to the court, plaintiffs established that they are "interested person[s]” because they have a legitimate interest in seeking vacatur of the court’s prior approval of the settlement (CPLR 5015 [a]; see, Town Law § 68 [2]; Oppenheimer v Westcott, 47 NY2d 595, 602).
A motion to vacate an order must be made to the Judge who signed the order unless the Judge is unable to hear the application (CPLR 2221 [a]; Spahn v Griffith, 101 AD2d 1011; People v Petgen, 81 AD2d 951, 952, affd on other grounds 55 NY2d 529). In this case, the Justice who signed the order subsequently recused himself. Thus, the motion was properly brought before a different Justice. On the record before us, it was not an abuse of discretion to vacate the order. "It is well established that a court maintains inherent power to vacate a judgment in the interest of justice” (Ruben v American & Foreign Ins. Co., 185 AD2d 63, 67).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.