New York Court of Appeals, 1994

Maynard v. Greenberg

New York Court of Appeals · Decided January 18, 1994

631 N.E.2d 117; 82 N.Y.2d 913; 609 N.Y.S.2d 175; 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 3 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Trump (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
Andino v. Mills (N.Y. 2016)
Trezza v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority (N.Y. 2014)
Piotrowski v. McGuire Manor, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Piotrowski v. McGuire Manor, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Wechsler v. Wechsler (N.Y. 2009)
Midori Shimamoto v. S&F Warehouses, Inc. (N.Y. 2006)
Bryant v. State (N.Y. 2006)
Casey v. Ruffino (N.Y. 2003)
Roseboro v. New York City Transit Authority (N.Y. 2001)
Rodriguez v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority (N.Y. 2001)
Concepcion v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. (N.Y. 2001)
Gregorio v. City of New York (N.Y. 1999)
Siler v. 146 Montague Associates (N.Y. 1997)
Ancrum v. Eisenberg (N.Y. 1995)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The appeal should be dismissed, without costs, by the Court sua sponte, upon the ground that the State Constitution (art VI, § 3 [b] [3], [4]) and the CPLR (CPLR 5601 [c]; 5602 [b] [1]) do not authorize a grant of leave to the defendant on a certified question in these circumstances.

In this action, the Appellate Division reversed a judgment of Supreme Court, rendered after a nonjury trial, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division awarded plaintiff judgment as to liability and remanded the case for a determination of damages. Thereafter, the Appellate Division granted defendant leave to appeal to this Court on a certified question.

Defendant argues that because the trial court never reached the issue of damages, the remand by the Appellate Division concerns an issue not previously addressed and, therefore, that a "new trial” within the meaning of CPLR 5601 (c) has not been granted. It is clear that the issue of damages was fully litigated at the first trial. Thus, the trial as to damages ordered by the Appellate Division, while limited in scope, constitutes a new trial under CPLR 5601 (c), and the State Constitution and the CPLR do not authorize a grant of leave on a certified question in these circumstances.

Defendant next argues that any stipulation for judgment absolute under CPLR 5601 (c) would be illusory here, that no appeal lies as of right, and that the Appellate Division thus *915 has the power to grant leave under CPLR 5602 (b) (1) even though a new trial has been ordered. The limitation on the Appellate Division’s power to grant leave under CPLR 5602 (b) (1) is based simply on whether a new trial is ordered, not on whether a valid stipulation for judgment absolute can be filed.

Judge Titone taking no part.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court sua sponte, upon the ground that the State Constitution (art VI, § 3 [b] [3], [4]) and the CPLR (CPLR 5601 [c]; 5602 [b] [1]) do not authorize a grant of leave to defendant on a certified question in these circumstances, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.