Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed an order denying James H. Brady's motion to vacate a 2018 judgment enforcing a prior monetary judgment and granting sanctions that enjoined him from filing related actions or motions without prior permission. The court held that the asserted newly discovered information did not affect the enforcement proceeding and that Brady's motion was untimely, and upheld the sanctions based on his extensive history of abusive litigation conduct.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Supreme Court properly denied respondent's motion to vacate the June 2018 enforcement judgment based on newly discovered evidence under CPLR 5015(a)(2).
- Whether Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion by sanctioning respondent and enjoining him from filing further related actions or motions without prior permission.
Holdings
- The motion to vacate was properly denied because respondent failed to explain how the allegedly new information would have changed the outcome of the proceeding, which was limited to enforcement of the prior judgment, and he waited more than three years after learning of the information to seek vacatur.
- Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting sanctions, including an injunction barring respondent from filing further related actions or motions without prior permission, in light of his extensive and well-documented abuse of the judicial process.
Key quotations
“Respondent does not explain how the allegedly "new" information would have changed the outcome in this proceeding, which is solely to enforce the prior judgment” ([*1])
“The court also providently exercised its discretion in granting petitioner's cross-motion for sanctions in light of respondent's extensive and well-documented history of abuse of the judicial process” ([*1])
Factual background
The parties had been litigating since 2009. Petitioner held a judgment against respondent exceeding $1.4 million in 2017 and sought to satisfy it from respondent's share of the proceeds of a forced sale of cooperative stock and the associated proprietary lease for a penthouse apartment. Respondent later moved to vacate the 2018 enforcement judgment, asserting that information discovered in May 2021 undermined the 2015 jury verdict. The record also showed an extensive history of abusive litigation conduct and prior sanctions and injunctions against respondent.
Procedural history
Petitioner obtained a judgment against respondent after a jury verdict and commenced an Article 52 proceeding to enforce it against respondent's share of proceeds from a forced sale of cooperative stock and the related proprietary lease. Supreme Court granted the petition in a June 2018 judgment. In January 2025, Supreme Court denied respondent's motion to vacate that judgment based on allegedly newly discovered evidence and granted sanctions in the form of a filing injunction. The First Department unanimously affirmed with costs.