From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hansen v. City of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 14, 1949
299 N.Y. 136 (N.Y. 1949)

Opinion

Argued February 22, 1949

Decided April 14, 1949

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, KOCH, J.

Paul O'Dwyer for appellant. John P. McGrath, Corporation Counsel ( Fred Iscol and Seymour B. Quel of counsel), for respondents.


In this action for damages for personal injuries suffered by decedent in his lifetime, but unrelated to his later death, the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed at the close of her case for failure to establish his freedom from contributory negligence. The judgment of dismissal thereafter entered did not contain a recital that it was made "without prejudice" the effect of which was to make it a final determination on the merits and to bar the commencement of another action. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 482.) Later a motion made by plaintiff to amend and correct the judgment nunc pro tunc by inserting the words "without prejudice, and not on the merits" was granted at Special Term by the Justice who had presided at the trial. Upon appeal the Appellate Division reversed on the law and the facts and denied the plaintiff's motion. The plaintiff appeals to this court by permission of the Appellate Division and upon two certified questions inquiring whether the Special Term had the power to so amend and correct its order and secondly, whether its exercise constituted an abuse of discretion. In any event, whether the Appellate Division order be treated as a new final judgment or as a new final order, it nevertheless is a final determination appealable as of right. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 588; S.J.E. Bldg. Corp. v. Matt O.M. Constr. Co., 265 N.Y. 282.) Moreover, the Appellate Division must be taken to have denied the plaintiff's motion in the exercise of discretion and not as a matter of law, with the result that no question is presented which we can reach. ( Schenectady Trust Co. v. Emmons, 290 N.Y. 225.)

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs, and the questions certified not answered.

LOUGHRAN, Ch. J., LEWIS, CONWAY, DESMOND, DYE, FULD and BROMLEY, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, etc.


Summaries of

Hansen v. City of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 14, 1949
299 N.Y. 136 (N.Y. 1949)
Case details for

Hansen v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:FLORENCE HANSEN, as Administratrix of the Estate of JOHN A. HANSEN…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Apr 14, 1949

Citations

299 N.Y. 136 (N.Y. 1949)
85 N.E.2d 905

Citing Cases

People v. Scanlon

The Appellate Division not only reversed on the facts as well as on the law but made it clear in its opinion…

Kilduff v. Donna Oil Corp.

It is beyond dispute that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are applicable to issues…