Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantlitigationdiscoveryliabilityappealmotionmotion to dismiss
defendantlitigationdiscoveryliabilityappealmotionmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Stewart v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 39 Mich.App. 360, 197 N.W.2d 465
View Case »
In re Mallinckrodt, Inc., 262 S.W.3d 469
View Case »
Evans v. Comptroller of Treasury, Income Tax Division, 273 Md. 172, 328 A.2d 272
View Case »
Londoner v. City and County of Denver, 210 U.S. 373, 28 S.Ct. 708, 52 L.Ed. 1103
View Case »
Buder v. Director of Revenue, 869 S.W.2d 752
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Tax Equity Now NY LLC v. City of New York, 173 A.D.3d 464, 104 N.Y.S.3d 50, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 04492

Facts

The limited liability company brought an action against the City of New York, the New York City Department of Finance, the State of New York, and the New York Office of Real Property Tax Services, claiming that the city's property tax system was inequitable. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the defendants' motions to stay the proceedings while the parties appealed a prior order that had denied the city's motion to dismiss and partially granted the state's motion to dismiss. The plaintiff subsequently appealed the stay order.

The limited liability company brought an action against the City of New York, the New York City Department of Finance, the State of New York, and the New York Office of Real Property Tax Services, claiming that the city's property tax system was inequitable.

Issue

Did the appeal of the order denying motions to dismiss trigger an automatic stay under the CPLR, and was a discretionary stay proper under CPLR 5519?

Did the appeal of the order denying motions to dismiss trigger an automatic stay under the CPLR, and was a discretionary stay proper under CPLR 5519?

Rule

The automatic stay does not apply to litigation obligations such as answering and complying with discovery requests when appealing an order denying a motion to dismiss. A discretionary stay under CPLR 5519 is coextensive with the automatic stay and is not available if the automatic stay does not apply.

The filing of a notice of appeal of an order denying a motion to dismiss does not trigger the automatic stay with respect to litigation obligations provided for in the CPLR, such as the obligation to answer and comply with discovery requests.

Analysis

The court determined that the filing of a notice of appeal did not trigger the automatic stay regarding the defendants' obligations under the CPLR. It clarified that while the automatic stay applies to proceedings enforcing the judgment or order appealed from, it does not extend to obligations that arise from the CPLR. Consequently, the court found that the discretionary stay was not appropriate under CPLR 5519(c) since the defendants were not entitled to an automatic stay. However, the court chose to exercise its inherent authority to grant a discretionary stay of the proceedings pending appeal.

The court determined that the filing of a notice of appeal did not trigger the automatic stay regarding the defendants' obligations under the CPLR.

Conclusion

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order granting the defendants' motions for a stay of the proceedings, based on the court's inherent authority to do so.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order granting the defendants' motions for a stay of the proceedings.

Who won?

The defendants prevailed in the case as the Appellate Division affirmed the stay of proceedings, allowing them to defer litigation obligations while the appeal was pending.

The Appellate Division affirmed the stay, exercising its inherent authority to do so despite the lack of an automatic stay under the CPLR.

You must be