Kwiatkowski v. Horne

2025 NY Slip Op 00543

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: January 31, 2025
• Docket: 705 CA 23-01662
• Status: Published

Opinion

Kwiatkowski v Horne (2025 NY Slip Op 00543)

Kwiatkowski v Horne

2025 NY Slip Op 00543

Decided on January 31, 2025

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 31, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, AND DELCONTE, JJ.

705 CA 23-01662

[*1]GREGORY M. KWIATKOWSKI, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

v

CARIOL J. HORNE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, NEW YORK CITY (KEVIN DECKER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LAW OFFICE OF RALPH C. LORIGO, WEST SENECA (FRANK J. JACOBSON OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Raymond W. Walter, J.), entered September 14, 2023. The order denied the motion of defendant to vacate, inter alia, a 2011 judgment.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order that denied her motion to vacate, inter alia, a 2011 judgment entered against her in this action. We note that, before defendant filed her motion, plaintiff commenced a separate action on the 2011 judgment pursuant to CPLR 5014 and obtained a renewal judgment. CPLR 5014 provides for an action on a money judgment that " 'enables the judgment creditor to sue on the old judgment and thereby acquire a new judgment and a fresh 10 year lien' " (Gletzer v Harris, 12 NY3d 468, 475 [2009] [emphasis added]; see CPLR 5203 [a]). Assuming, arguendo, that the entry of the renewal judgment did not extinguish the original judgment (see generally Platinum Funding Corp. v Blue Ocean Lines, 249 AD2d 19, 19 [1st Dept 1998]), we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion after considering each of the factors raised by defendant (see generally Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 68 [2003]; Ladd v Stevenson, 112 NY 325, 332 [1889]; Quinn v Guerra, 26 AD3d 872, 873 [4th Dept 2006], appeal dismissed 7 NY3d 741 [2006]).

Entered: January 31, 2025

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court