Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of a defendant's motion to stay and vacate a foreclosure judgment and for renewal of summary judgment. The court determined that the plaintiff's notice of entry accurately reflected the judgment's filing date based on a computer-generated stamp, rendering the defendant's motion to renew under CPLR 2221(e)(2) untimely because it was filed after the statutory appeal period had expired. Furthermore, the court clarified that an amended judgment merely correcting typographical errors did not alter substantive appealable rights or supersede the original judgment for appellate purposes.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Renaissance's motion to renew under CPLR 2221(e)(2) was timely.
- Whether the amended judgment supersedes the original judgment for purposes of taking an appeal.
Holdings
- The motion to renew was untimely because it was not filed before the time to appeal the final judgment expired.
- The amended judgment correcting typographical errors does not affect substantive appeal rights and does not supersede the original judgment for appeal purposes.
Key quotations
“Accordingly, Renaissance's motion for leave to renew pursuant to CPLR 2221(e)(2), based on a change in the law with the enactment of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act, was untimely because it was not made before the time to appeal the final judgment expired (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Gallant, 237 AD3d 522, 523 [1st Dept 2025]).” (at 1)
“Moreover, the amended judgment dated September 14, 2023, which, sua sponte, corrected certain typographical errors and annexed plaintiff's costs and disbursements, did not affect any substantive appealable rights decided upon the original judgment and would not necessarily supersede the original judgment for purposes of taking an appeal (see Robert Martin Co. v Town of Greenburgh, 74 NY2d 701 [1989]).” (at 1)
Factual background
The Supreme Court entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale on July 12, 2023. Plaintiff gave notice of entry on July 27, 2023. Renaissance filed a motion to stay, vacate, and later a motion to renew summary judgment, which was denied. An amended judgment correcting typographical errors was entered on September 14, 2023.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, New York County entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale on July 12, 2023 and later denied Renaissance's motion to stay and vacate and to renew summary judgment. Renaissance appealed, arguing the motion to renew under CPLR 2221(e)(2) was timely and that an amended judgment dated September 14, 2023 superseded the original judgment for appeal purposes.