Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn

Decision Date23 February 1983
Citation446 N.E.2d 768,460 N.Y.S.2d 12,58 N.Y.2d 179
Parties, 446 N.E.2d 768 MANSFIELD STATE BANK, Appellant, v. Maurice J. COHN, Respondent. Chicago Title Insurance Company, Judgment Creditor.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals


Where a foreign judgment is filed in New York under CPLR 5402, that filing is then vacated when the foreign judgment is reversed on intermediate appeal, and a n filing thereafter made when the foreign judgment is reinstated on further appeal, the lien of the judgment creditor in New York dates from the date of the new filing. The inherent power of a court to correct clerical errors in a prior determination may not be invoked to effect the retroactive creation of substantive rights when the rights of third parties have intervened.

The chain of factual and procedural events which gave rise to this litigation is described in detail in the dissenting opinion at the Appellate Division (88 A.D.2d 837, 838, 451 N.Y.S.2d 401). Priority as between the lien of the bank as judgment creditor under the Texas judgment filed in New York County pursuant to the provisions of CPLR 5402 and the lien of the title insurance company as judgment creditor under its judgment docketed in New York County is to be determined under New York law; we are unconcerned as to the status in Texas of the successive orders of the Texas courts.

The first event of any legal significance for present purposes was the filing by the bank on June 16, 1977 of an authenticated copy of the judgment in its favor rendered by the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas. That filing gave the bank the same lien it would have had had the judgment been that of the Supreme Court of the State of New York (CPLR 5402, subd. [b] ). The reversal on February 23, 1978 of the Texas judgment by the Texas Court of Civil Appeals, that State's intermediate appellate court, without more served only to expose the filing in New York to an application for vacatur or a stay of enforcement. The bank then voluntarily moved "for an order providing for the vacati of the filing of the Texas judgment * * * without prejudice, to the refiling of said Texas judgment if such judgment is revised or reinstated", and the judgment debtor cross-moved for an order "vacating the filing of the Judgment". The court made an order, entered on July 28, 1978, granting the bank's motion, vacating the filing of the Texas judgment, and vacating and nullifying the docketing of that judgment. (The requested "without prejudice" provision was deleted from this order.) The bank took no appeal.

On November 7, 1978 following further appeal the Supreme Court of Texas reinstated the Texas...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Boorman v. Deutsch
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 9, 1989
    ...(see, e.g., Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 107 Misc.2d 1078, 436 N.Y.S.2d 555, affd 88 A.D.2d 837, 451 N.Y.S.2d 401, affd 58 N.Y.2d 179, 460 N.Y.S.2d 12, 446 N.E.2d 768). The doctrine of res judicata, in the narrow or technical sense, is also inapplicable. Although the parties and the claim ......
  • Rivera v. Laporte
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • August 17, 1983
    ...where it could work an injustice to litigants, or even to non-parties (see, Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 58 N.Y.21d 179, 460 N.Y.S.2d 12, 446 N.E.2d 768); it cannot legally exercise its power where it would effect deprivation of a constitutional right. Similarly immaterial here is the lack......
  • Jakobleff v. Jakobleff
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 4, 1985
    ...defendant (see Jakobleff v. Jakobleff, supra, 119 Misc.2d pp. 934-935, 464 N.Y.S.2d 976; see, also, Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 58 N.Y.2d 179, 182-183, 460 N.Y.S.2d 12, 446 N.E.2d 768). Although the courts possess inherent discretionary power to grant relief from a judgment or order in th......
  • Gletzer v. Harris
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 12, 2009
    ...196 N.Y.S.2d 98, 164 N.E.2d 395, quoting Mohrmann v. Kob, 291 N.Y. 181, 186, 51 N.E.2d 921 [1943]). In Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 58 N.Y.2d 179, 460 N.Y.S.2d 12, 446 N.E.2d 768 [1983], under somewhat different circumstances, we restated the limits of nunc pro tunc treatment. There, a cou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT