Guarnier v. American Dredging Co., 64 N.Y.2d 300 (1984)
Under CPLR 5601(c), a stipulation for judgment absolute, to be valid for appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, must effect a final determination of the action regarding both liability and damages.
Summary
The American Dredging Company appealed an order from the Appellate Division that reversed a jury verdict in their favor in a personal injury case and ordered a new trial. The company stipulated that if the Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, a judgment absolute would be entered against them on the issue of liability. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that a stipulation for judgment absolute must resolve both liability and damages to be valid under CPLR 5601(c). The court reasoned that allowing appeals on liability alone would frustrate the statute’s purpose of avoiding prolonged litigation and multiple appeals.
Facts
This case involves a personal injury claim against American Dredging Company. Following a jury trial, a judgment was entered for the defendant, American Dredging Company.
Procedural History
The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s judgment and ordered a new trial. The defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, stipulating that an affirmance by that court would result in judgment absolute against them on the issue of liability only.
Issue(s)
Whether a stipulation for judgment absolute, under CPLR 5601(c), is sufficient to allow an appeal to the Court of Appeals when the stipulation only addresses liability and leaves the issue of damages to be determined at a subsequent trial.
Holding
No, because a stipulation for judgment absolute must effect a final determination of the action as to both liability and damages.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the purpose of CPLR 5601(c) is to avoid prolonged litigation and multiple appeals. The court stated, “[A] stipulation for judgment absolute must also effect a final determination of the action as to both liability and damages. Otherwise, it frustrates the underlying purpose of the statute, which is to avoid prolonged litigation and multiple appeals.” The court found that a stipulation limited to liability, with damages remaining to be tried, does not achieve this purpose. The court explicitly overruled Brown v. Poritzky, 30 NY2d 289, to the extent it held otherwise. The Court distinguished its prior holding in Goldberg v. Elkom Co. (36 NY2d 914), explaining that in Goldberg, the stipulation was illusory because the appellant would not relinquish anything in the event of the Court’s affirmance of the Appellate Division order. In this case, the stipulation was not illusory. However, it was insufficient because it did not finalize both liability and damages.