Matter of Huie, 20 N.Y.2d 568 (1967)

A final order, unappealed within the statutory timeframe, becomes res judicata, barring subsequent attempts to relitigate the same issues, even if an intervening appellate decision alters the relevant law.

Summary

This case addresses the finality of court orders. The claimant sought damages related to the Neversink Dam. An initial order denied the claim as time-barred. The claimant did not appeal. Later, relying on a Supreme Court case, the claimant moved for reargument, which was granted. The Appellate Division reversed. The New York Court of Appeals held that granting reargument based solely on an intervening change in the law after the appeal period expired was improper. The initial order, unappealed, was a final determination, and res judicata prevented its reconsideration.

Facts

The claimant sought damages to his property allegedly caused by the Neversink Dam.
A Special Term order (Justice Deckelman) denied the claim, ruling it was barred by the statute of limitations and that relief was only available via an Article 78 proceeding.
The claimant did not appeal this order.
The claimant then brought an Article 78 proceeding, which also failed, with Special Term noting the statute of limitations had already been conclusively determined.
Later, the claimant moved to vacate the original order based on the Supreme Court decision in Schroeder v. City of New York, decided after the initial order was served.

Procedural History

Special Term initially denied the claimant’s motion for damages.
Claimant did not appeal.
Special Term granted the claimant’s motion for reargument, vacating its prior order, based on the Schroeder decision.
The Appellate Division reversed the Special Term’s order granting reargument.
The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the Appellate Division’s reversal.

Issue(s)

Whether a court can grant reargument of a prior order after the time to appeal has expired, based solely on an intervening appellate decision that changes the existing law.

Holding

No, because absent circumstances such as newly discovered evidence or fraud, a court determination from which no appeal has been taken should remain inviolate; the time to appeal cannot be extended indefinitely based on subsequent changes in the law.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on its prior decision in Deeves v. Fabric Fire Hose Co., which held that a motion for reargument cannot be granted after the time to appeal has expired solely because an appellate court has overruled existing law.
The court emphasized the importance of finality in litigation, stating, “there must be an end to lawsuits and the time to take an appeal cannot forever be extended.”
The court noted that CPLR 5015 provides specific grounds for vacating a prior order (e.g., newly discovered evidence, fraud, lack of jurisdiction), none of which were present in this case.
The court distinguished the Wisconsin cases cited by the appellant, noting that in those cases, the plaintiff had been granted leave to plead over, meaning the matter was still pending, unlike the instant case where the initial order was a final determination.
The court emphasized that the city was entitled to rely on the initial order as a final determination after the claimant failed to appeal.