See, e.g., N.Y. Thruway Auth. v. State, 25 N.Y.2d 210, 219 (1969); Karger, Powers of the N.Y. Ct. of App. § 5:30 (3d ed. 2005). This is true even if the order on review does not otherwise satisfy the finality and appealability requirements set forth in N.Y. CPLR 5601. See, e.g., Schwartz v. Bogen, 30 N.Y.2d 648, 649, 331 (1972); Betzag v. Gulf Oil Corp., 300 N.Y. 576, 577 (1949); cf. Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC, 27 N.Y.3d 1033 (2016) (application to enforce remittitur properly brought by appeal, not motion).

Thus, the Order finally determined this proceeding. Justices Tom and Moskowitz dissented on multiple questions of law in favor of Appellants, making this appealable as of right under CPLR section 5601(a). SeeR 12-20.

(See Plaintiffs Stipulation of January 24, 2017.) However, an affirmance of the First Department by this Court would not result in the termination of this action-it would leave Plaintiff with the right to seek a new trial on the issue of damages, thus making the procedure set forth in NY CPLR § 5601(c) unavailable. See Lusenskas, 81 N.Y.2d at 301.

and that ruling is final under CPLR § 5601(a)(1) because it “leaves 1 GEICO also sought an “order staying all pending law suits and arbitrations” by Avanguard against GEICO on the issue, but only sought that relief “pending a final determination of [the] action,” not as a separate cause of action or as a form of final relief. (R. 558.) - 5

anatee Cnty., 630 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2011) ................................................... 46 Richland Bookmart, Inc. v. Knox Cnty., 555 F.3d 512 (6th Cir. 2009)........................................... 46, 76, 78 Stringfellow’s of N.Y., Ltd. v. City of New York, 91 N.Y.2d 382 (1998) .......................................................... 4, 9, 43 Town of Islip v. Caviglia, 73 N.Y.2d 544 (1989) ...................................................... 60, 72, 80 World Wide Video of Wash., Inc. v. City of Spokane, 368 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004) ..................................................... 46 Constitutional Provisions and Statutes N.Y. Const., Art. VI, § 3(b)(1) .......................................................... 39 N.Y. Const., Art. 1, § 8 .................................................................... 42 N.Y. CPLR 5601(a) .......................................................................... 39 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d) Page(s) vi N.Y. CPLR 5601(b)(1) ...................................................................... 39 N.Y. Penal Law §§ 235.20-24 .......................................................... 25 Other Authorities Arthur Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals (3d ed. 2005) .................................................................. 39 N.Y.C. Dep’t of Bldgs., Operation Policy & Procedure Notice 6/98 (1998) ......................................................................... 8 N.Y.C. Zoning Resolution ............................................ 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT In two key decisions in 1998 and 2005, this Court upheld the constitutionality of the New York City Council’s original adult use zoning regulations for adult businesses such as topless clubs and triple-X video stores. In its latter decision, it also confirmed that the City had satisfied its prima facie burden to support the constitutionality of the City Council’s 2001 amendments to those reg

This Court has jurisdiction over the instant appeal pursuant to CPLR § 5602(a)(1)(i) because the action originated in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, and because the order of the Appellate Division appealed from finally determined the action and is not appealable as of right under CPLR § 5601. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiff-Appellant Justinian Capital SPC (“Justinian” or “Plaintiff”) respectfully requests that this Court reverse the May 21, 2015 decision and order of the Appellate Division, First Department, which affirmed the February 25, 2014 decision and order of the Supreme Court, New York County dismissing with prejudice Justinian’s Complaint against Defendants-Respondents WestLB AG, New York Branch, and WestLB Asset Management (US) LLC (“Defendants” or “WestLB”).1 WestLB was a major player in the financial meltdown in the last decade, and its wrongdoing cost investors hundreds of millions of dollars.

issues addressed at the Appellate Division, Fourth Department (in both the majority opinion and a two-Justice dissent), included whether: (a) petitioner’s evidence (and particularly its appraisal) failed to comply with the requirements of the Uniform Rules for the New York State Trial Courts and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, and, therefore, was both incompetent and inadmissible as evidence of value; (b) petitioner’s evidence was legally sufficient to require a factual determination by the referee presiding over the trial as to the value of the condominium units; and (c) if so, whether petitioner’s evidence as to the capitalization rate was competent, admissible, and legally sufficient to support the trial court’s decision to adopt that capitalization rate. As this Court is also aware, petitioner previously moved to dismiss this appeal, arguing that respondent lacked the requisite jurisdictional predicate for an appeal as of right pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5601(a) (McKinney’s 1995 & Supp. 2013). By Order dated June 6, 2013, this Court denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss, and thereby recognized that the two-Justice dissent at the Appellate - 3 - Division was “a dissent by at least two Justices on a question of law” in favor of respondent.

Respondents respectfully submit that this Court should affirm. 7 RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS’ JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT Respondents agree with Appellants that this action is governed by N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5601(d) and 5501(b). Accordingly, the only matter presently before this Court is the Memorandum and Order of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, dated March 23, 2012 (R. 906-91).

............... 24, 32, 34, 45 Sullivan Cty. Harness Racing Ass’n v. Glasser, 30 N.Y.2d 269 (1972) ......................................................................................... 37 Timber Point Homes, Inc. v. Cty. of Suffolk, 548 N.Y.2d 250 (2d Dep’t 1989) ........................................................................ 38 Matter of Tze Chun Liao v. N.Y. State Banking Dep’t, 74 N.Y.2d 505 (1989) ......................................................................................... 23 vi Under 21, Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children v. City of N.Y., 65 N.Y.2d 344 (1985) ......................................................................................... 34 Welcher v. Sobol, 222 A.D.2d 1001 (3d Dep’t 1995) ...................................................................... 37 Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001) ...................................................................................... 28, 32 Statutes N.Y. CPLR 5601(b)(l) ....................................................................................... 20, 21 N.Y. Not-for-Profit Corp. Law § 508 .......................................................... 11, 26, 28 N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 32(6) ..................................................................... 17, 26, 27 N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 201 .............................................................................. 26, 27 N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 201(1)(v) .................................................................... 26, 27 N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 201(1)(o) .............................................................. 11, 26, 27 N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 201(1)(p) .............................................................. 11, 26, 27 N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 206(3) ................................................................... 11, 26, 27 N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 206(6) ................................................................... 11, 26, 27 N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 363

... .. . ..... .. . ........... ........ .. ... . ....... 24 Solar Line, Universal Great Brotherhood, Inc. v. Prado, 100 A.D.3d 862 (2d Dep't. 2012) ............................................ 35,36 Stearns v. Mariani, 294 A.D.2d 808 (4th Dep't 2002).. ...... ....... .. . .. .. ... . . . ........... .. . ..... 22 Tiano v. Lane, 260 A.D.2d 908 (3d Dep't 1999)............................................ .... 10 Vega v. Restani Const. Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 499 (2012)...................................................... 9, 10,38 Zuckerman v. City ofNew York, 49 N.Y.2d 557 (1980)........ .. ... .. .. . . ...................................................... 10 Statutes N.Y. CPLR 3212(b) ........................................................................ 9 N.Y. CPLR § 5601 ......................................................................... 4 N.Y. CPLR § 5602(a)(l).. ... . . .. . . ......... ............ ... . . . . . . ................ .........