Rancho Santa Fe Association v. Dolan-King

• Decision Date: 11 January 2007
• Docket Number: 9540.,9539.
• Citation: 829 N.Y.S.2d 39,36 A.D.3d 460,2007 NY Slip Op 00209
• Parties: THE RANCHO SANTA FE ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. PATRICIA DOLAN-KING, Respondent. In the Matter of THE RANCHO SANTA FE ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. PATRICIA DOLAN-KING, Respondent, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

36 A.D.3d 460

829 N.Y.S.2d 39

2007 NY Slip Op 00209

THE RANCHO SANTA FE ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. PATRICIA DOLAN-KING, Respondent.

In the Matter of THE RANCHO SANTA FE ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. PATRICIA DOLAN-KING, Respondent, et al., Respondents.

9539.

9540.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

Decided January 11, 2007.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucy Billings, J.),

entered February 9, 2006, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff's motion for renewal, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and, upon renewal, the judgment entered March 28, 2005 vacated, the petition reinstated, and the filing of the California judgment deemed valid, nunc pro tunc, as of September 13, 2004. Appeal from the order and judgment (one paper), same court and Justice, entered March 28, 2005, which denied petitioner creditor's application, pursuant to CPLR 5206 (e), for a sheriff's sale of respondent debtor's Bronx County homesteads, and found petitioner's filing of a California judgment against respondent to be a nullity, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic in light of the appeal from the subsequent order. The matter is remanded to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance herewith. [See 12 Misc 3d 1178(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 51304(U) (2006).]

While it is true that a motion for leave to renew is intended to direct the court's attention to new or additional facts which, although in existence at the time the original motion was made, were unknown to the movant and were, therefore, not brought to the court's attention (Garner v Latimer, 306 AD2d 209, 209 [2003]; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568 [1979]), the rule is not inflexible and the court, in its discretion, may grant renewal, in the interest of justice, upon facts known to the movant at the time of the original motion (Wilder v May Dept. Stores Co., 23 AD3d 646, 648 [2005]; Garner v Latimer, 306 AD2d at 209 [2003]). Indeed, this Court has held that even if the rigorous requirements for renewal are not satisfied, such relief may still be granted so as not to defeat substantive fairness (Garner v Latimer, 306 AD2d at 210; Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y. v City of New York, 280 AD2d 374, 377 [2001]). Initially, we find that the motion court improperly inquired into the merits of the California judgment when it ruled on petitioner's motion for renewal. "New York courts are required to enforce judgments rendered in other states under article IV of the United States Constitution. The constitutional requirement of full faith and credit precludes any inquiry into the merits of the judgment, the logic or consistency of the decision underlying it or the validity of the legal principles on which it is based. While the merits of a judgment of a sister state may not be collaterally attacked, a judgment debtor may challenge the judgment on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction" (Cadle Co. v Tri-Angle Assoc., 18 AD3d 100, 103 [2005] [citations omitted]; see also Mortgage Money Unlimited v Schaffer, 1 AD3d 773, 774 [2003]).

Here, no issue regarding personal jurisdiction was raised by respondent, and the motion court should not have delved into the issue of whether the notation by the California court clerk was properly added to the July 30, 2002 judgment previously signed by the trial judge, in light of the fact that the judgment was properly authenticated. In any event, the...