New York Law Review

Marotta v. Hoy, 55 N.Y.2d 915 (1982): Limits on Appellate Division’s Power to Grant Leave to Appeal

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

Marotta v. Hoy, 55 N.Y.2d 915 (1982)

When a new trial is ordered, even if limited in scope, the Appellate Division lacks the power to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals on a certified question.

Summary

This case clarifies the limitations on the Appellate Division’s authority to grant leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals held that when the Appellate Division orders a new trial, even one limited to damages, it cannot grant leave to appeal on a certified question. The availability of a valid stipulation for judgment absolute is irrelevant; the key factor is simply whether a new trial has been ordered. This decision ensures the finality of orders directing new trials, preventing piecemeal appeals on certified questions.

Facts

The Supreme Court, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. The Appellate Division reversed this judgment, finding the defendant liable and remanding the case for a trial on damages. The Appellate Division then granted the defendant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals on a certified question.

Procedural History

1. Supreme Court: Dismissed the complaint after a nonjury trial.
2. Appellate Division: Reversed the Supreme Court’s judgment, awarded judgment to plaintiff on liability, and remanded for a trial on damages.
3. Appellate Division: Granted defendant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals on a certified question.

Issue(s)

Whether the Appellate Division has the power to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals on a certified question when it has ordered a new trial, even if that new trial is limited to the issue of damages.

Holding

No, because the State Constitution and the CPLR do not authorize a grant of leave on a certified question when a new trial has been ordered, regardless of the scope of the new trial.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals based its decision on the State Constitution (art VI, § 3 [b] [3], [4]) and the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR 5601 [c]; 5602 [b] [1]). The court emphasized that the limitation on the Appellate Division’s power to grant leave under CPLR 5602 (b) (1)

More ARTICLES