Hecht v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 57 (1983)

An appellate court generally cannot grant affirmative relief to a non-appealing party unless it is necessary to do so to accord full relief to a party who has appealed, or where the parties have a united and inseverable interest in the judgment.

Summary

Hecht sued the City of New York and Square Depew Garage Corporation for injuries sustained from a fall on a sidewalk outside the garage. The jury found both defendants equally liable. Only the City appealed, and the Appellate Division dismissed the complaint against both defendants. The Court of Appeals held that the Appellate Division erred in dismissing the action against Square Depew, the non-appealing party, as the City’s appeal did not automatically extend relief to Square Depew since their interests were severable.

Facts

Plaintiff Hecht fell on a sidewalk outside a garage operated by Square Depew Garage Corporation, allegedly due to a gap between sidewalk flagstones. She sued both the City of New York, responsible for sidewalk maintenance, and Square Depew, the adjacent property owner, alleging negligence in failing to maintain a safe sidewalk.

Procedural History

The trial court found both the City and Square Depew equally liable after a jury trial. The City of New York appealed to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision, dismissing the complaint against both the City and Square Depew. Hecht then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the Appellate Division had the authority to dismiss the complaint against Square Depew Garage Corporation, a defendant who did not appeal the trial court’s judgment.

Holding

No, because the power of an appellate court to review a judgment is limited to the parts of the judgment that have been appealed and that aggrieve the appealing party. Further, multiple tortfeasors do not have an inseverable interest in a judgment.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that an appellate court’s power to review a judgment is triggered by a timely appeal. The scope of review is generally limited to the parts of the judgment that the appealing party challenges. A reversal regarding an appealing party does not automatically benefit a non-appealing co-party unless their interests are “united and inseverable.” Here, the City’s interest was severable from Square Depew’s, as they were joint tortfeasors. The court stated that “[w]hen multiple tort-feasors are found to be liable for damages, they may not be said to have an inseverable interest in the judgment, even though the factual basis for each party’s liability is identical.” The Court rejected the argument that CPLR 5522 grants appellate courts discretionary power to grant relief to non-appealing parties, stating that the provision merely enumerates the types of dispositions an appellate court may order. Therefore, the Appellate Division erred in dismissing the complaint against Square Depew, which had not appealed the original judgment. The Court modified the Appellate Division’s order, reinstating the judgment against Square Depew. The court emphasized that the power to fashion complete relief to an appealing party does not automatically extend to non-appealing parties unless their interests are inseparable, which was not the case here. “[N]either CPLR 5522 nor any other statutory or constitutional authority permits an appellate court to exercise any general discretionary power to grant relief to a nonappealing party.”