Trimarco v. Data Treasury Corp., N.Y. App. Div., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Advocates

Forde & Associates, New York, NY (James L. Forde of counsel), for appellant. Herrick, Feinstein LLP, New York, NY (Scott E. Mollen and Christopher P. Greeley of counsel), and Bracken Margolin Besunder LLP, Islandia, NY (Linda U. Margolin of counsel), for respondent (one brief filed).

Judges

Reinaldo E. Rivera
Jeffrey A. Cohen
Robert J. Miller
Sheri S. Roman

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion addresses a series of post-judgment motions following a nonjury trial in a dispute between Michael C. Trimarco (appellant) and Data Treasury Corporation (respondent). The appellant moved to set aside a decision of the Supreme Court dated October 30, 2013, and to vacate the judgment entered December 10, 2013. Subsequent motions included a request to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) and a motion to compel the defendant's attorneys to preserve and produce certain documents generated post-judgment. The court denied these motions and the appellant appealed.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the appellant's motion to set aside the Supreme Court's decision pursuant to CPLR 4404(b) was timely and properly made.
Whether the appellant demonstrated sufficient grounds to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) and CPLR 5015(a).
Whether the appellant was entitled to compel the defendant's attorneys to preserve and produce documents generated after the judgment.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Paterno v. Strimling, 107 A.D.3d 1233, 968 N.Y.S.2d 643	Standard for motions to set aside a decision after a nonjury trial pursuant to CPLR 4404(b); such motions must be timely and are subject to the same standard as findings in a nonjury trial.	Used to confirm that the appellant's motion was untimely and failed to meet the standard for setting aside the decision.
Rice v. Rice, 135 A.D.3d 928, 25 N.Y.S.3d 232	Requirement to demonstrate good cause for delay in making a motion under CPLR 4404(b).	Applied to find the appellant failed to show good cause for the delay in filing the motion.
Rossrock Fund II, L.P. v. Norlin Corp., 128 A.D.3d 1046, 11 N.Y.S.3d 104	Standard for vacating a judgment on grounds of fraud requiring fraud in the procurement of the judgment itself.	Used to reject appellant’s motion to vacate the judgment due to lack of evidence beyond conclusory affidavit.
Bongiasca v. Bongiasca, 289 A.D.2d 121, 735 N.Y.S.2d 42	Supporting precedent on the requirement of demonstrating fraud in the means of procuring judgment.	Reinforced the standard requiring specific proof of fraud, which appellant did not meet.
Caiola v. Allcity Ins. Co., 257 A.D.2d 586, 684 N.Y.S.2d 266	Further authority on the standards for vacating judgment on grounds of fraud.	Supported the court’s denial of the motion to vacate due to insufficient evidence of fraud.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first analyzed the appellant's motion under CPLR 4404(b) to set aside the Supreme Court's decision following a nonjury trial. It found the motion untimely under CPLR 4405 since it was not made within 15 days after the court's decision, and the appellant failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay. Additionally, the motion was deemed improper as it was the appellant's third posttrial motion, violating CPLR 4406 which limits parties to one posttrial motion raising all grounds for relief.

Substantively, the court found the appellant's arguments insufficient, consisting largely of conclusory attacks on the court's credibility determinations and new evidence that was available at trial but not presented. Thus, the motion to set aside the decision and vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) was properly denied.

Regarding the subsequent motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a), the court applied the stringent standard requiring proof of fraud in the procurement of the judgment itself. The appellant failed to provide evidence beyond an unsupported affidavit, leading to denial of this motion as well.

Finally, the court denied the appellant's motion to compel the defendant's attorneys to preserve and produce documents generated after the judgment, finding no basis to grant such relief.

Holding and Implications

The orders denying the appellant’s motions to set aside the decision, vacate the judgment, and compel document production are affirmed.

The direct effect of this decision is the finality of the Supreme Court's October 30, 2013 decision and the December 10, 2013 judgment. The appellant’s attempts to reopen or challenge the judgment on procedural and substantive grounds have been rejected. The opinion does not establish new precedent but reinforces existing procedural requirements for posttrial motions and the high threshold for vacating judgments based on fraud allegations.

Show full summary ...

Michael C. TRIMARCO, appellant, v. DATA TREASURY CORPORATION, respondent.

Forde & Associates, New York, NY (James L. Forde of counsel), for appellant.

Herrick, Feinstein LLP, New York, NY (Scott E. Mollen and Christopher P. Greeley of counsel), and Bracken Margolin Besunder LLP, Islandia, NY (Linda U. Margolin of counsel), for respondent (one brief filed).

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

the same court dated October 30, 2013, made after a nonjury trial, and for judgment as a matter of law, and pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3), in effect, to vacate a judgment of the same court dated December 10, 2013, entered upon the decision, (2) an order of the same court dated December 18, 2014, which denied his motion, inter alia, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate the judgment, and (3) an order of the same court dated February 10, 2015, which denied his motion to compel the defendant's attorneys to preserve and produce for inspection certain documents.

ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Pursuant to CPLR 4404(b), after a nonjury trial, a court may, on the motion of a party or its own motion, set aside its decision and make new findings of fact or conclusions of law (see Paterno v. Strimling, 107 A.D.3d 1233, 1234, 968 N.Y.S.2d 643 ). Such a motion must be made within 15 days after the submission of the court's decision (see CPLR 4405 ). A party is entitled to only one posttrial motion and must raise every available ground for relief in that single motion (see CPLR 4406 ). In the case of a nonjury trial, a motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 is subject to the same standard of review as findings in a nonjury trial generally (see Paterno v. Strimling, 107 A.D.3d at 1235, 968 N.Y.S.2d 643 ).

Here, that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404(b) to set aside the Supreme Court's decision was untimely under CPLR 4405, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay (see Rice v. Rice, 135 A.D.3d 928, 929, 25 N.Y.S.3d 232 ), and it was also an improper third motion for relief in violation of CPLR 4406. In any event, the plaintiff failed to present grounds to set aside the decision or vacate the judgment entered upon the decision other than conclusory and unsubstantiated attacks on the court's credibility determinations and additional evidence that was available at the time of trial. Accordingly, the court properly denied the plaintiff's motion to set aside the decision pursuant to CPLR 4404(b) and, in effect, to vacate the judgment entered upon the decision pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3).

The Supreme Court also properly denied the plaintiff's subsequent motion, in effect, to vacate the judgment pursuant but must show fraud in the very means by which the judgment was procured" (Rossrock Fund II, L.P. v. Norlin Corp., 128 A.D.3d 1046, 1047, 11 N.Y.S.3d 104 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Bongiasca v. Bongiasca, 289 A.D.2d 121, 122, 735 N.Y.S.2d 42 ; Caiola v. Allcity Ins. Co., 257 A.D.2d 586, 588, 684 N.Y.S.2d 266 ). Since the plaintiff failed to offer evidence other than his own conclusory and unsupported affidavit, the court properly denied his subsequent motion, in effect, to vacate the judgment.

Finally, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion to compel the defendant's attorneys to preserve and produce for inspection certain documents generated by them after the entry of a judgment in this matter.

Trimarco v. Data Treasury Corp.