Whitfield v. City of New York, 90 N.Y.2d 777 (1997)
An Appellate Division order reversing a judgment and directing a new trial unless a party stipulates to a different damages award is not final and appealable until the stipulation and any required amended judgment are entered, adhering strictly to the language of the order.
Summary
This case clarifies when a conditional order from the Appellate Division is considered a final, appealable order. The New York Court of Appeals held that the finality of such an order depends on its specific language. If the order requires only a stipulation to amended damages, the stipulation is the final paper. If it mandates a stipulation followed by an amended judgment, the judgment is the final paper. If the order states that the amended judgment entered on the stipulation is affirmed, the Appellate Division order is final upon entry of the amended judgment. Because, in this case, the amended judgment had not yet been entered, the motion for leave to appeal was dismissed for non-finality.
Facts
Gary Whitfield sued the City of New York for negligence due to injuries sustained in a fire in a city-owned building. The jury awarded Whitfield $10,351,000, which the trial court reduced to $7,402,000. The City appealed this judgment.
Procedural History
The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s judgment and ordered a new trial on damages unless Whitfield stipulated to reduce the awards for past and future pain and suffering. The order stated that if Whitfield stipulated and an amended judgment was entered, the amended judgment would be affirmed. Whitfield stipulated to the reduced damages. The City then sought leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order before an amended judgment was entered.
Issue(s)
Whether an Appellate Division order reversing a judgment and directing a new trial unless the plaintiff stipulates to reduced damages and the entry of an amended judgment is a final, appealable order before the amended judgment is entered.
Holding
No, because the Appellate Division order explicitly contemplated further action (the entry of an amended judgment) before the outcome of the appeal was known and before the order could have any effect. The court held that because the amended judgment had not been entered, no final paper existed, and the motion for leave to appeal was premature.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized the importance of adhering to the specific language of the Appellate Division order to determine finality. The court distinguished between orders that require only a stipulation, those that require a stipulation and an amended judgment, and those that explicitly affirm the amended judgment upon entry. In this case, the Appellate Division order specifically stated that the amended judgment would be affirmed if the plaintiff stipulated, indicating that the appeal was being held in abeyance until the amended judgment was entered. The court stated, “[I]f the order provides only for the execution of a stipulation, the stipulation is the final paper. If the Appellate Division order dictates a stipulation followed by an amended judgment, the judgment is the final paper. Where the Appellate Division order directs the entry of an amended judgment and specifies that, in that event, the amended judgment is affirmed, the Appellate Division order will be viewed as the final paper once the amended judgment is entered.” Because the amended judgment was not yet entered, the Appellate Division order was not yet a final determination. The Court also noted that only the non-stipulating party may appeal. The party who stipulates to the reduction or enhancement of the damages award cannot appeal or seek leave to appeal inasmuch as that party is not aggrieved.