Palma v. Cabrini of Westchester
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-05430
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Palma v. Cabrini of Westchester: Judge Briccetti denied the defendant’s stay request because the remand was executed and the appeal removed jurisdiction.
The defendant seeking to pause the remand was affected by the denial. The case had already been remanded to Supreme Court, Westchester County, and the federal court declined to halt that remand while the appeal proceeded.
What happened
In Palma v. Cabrini of Westchester, the court had already sent the case to Supreme Court, Westchester County. The defendant appealed that remand decision and later asked the federal court to permanently pause the remand while the appeal continued.
The court said it no longer had authority to decide that request. The earlier temporary stay had expired, the remand had been carried out, and the notice of appeal transferred control over the relevant parts of the case to the appeals court.
The court denied the defendant’s motion to stay the remand pending appeal. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also said that, even if the motion had been filed while the federal court still had authority, he was doubtful that the defendant could show that a permanent stay was justified.
The detailed version
- Palma v. Cabrini of Westchester · No. 7:22-cv-05430
- Vincent Briccetti
- Oct. 14, 2022
Background
By an opinion and order dated August 15, 2022, the court remanded the case to Supreme Court, Westchester County. The Clerk mailed a certified copy of that order to the state court the same day.
The defendant then requested a 30-day automatic stay to allow time to appeal. On August 29, 2022, the court granted a limited stay, canceled the Clerk’s earlier execution of the remand order, and paused further execution until September 14, 2022, solely to allow the defendant to file a notice of appeal. The defendant filed that notice on August 29. After the limited stay expired, the court instructed the Clerk on September 15 to execute the remand order.
On September 27, 2022, the defendant moved for a permanent stay of the remand pending appeal. The plaintiff did not respond.
Ruling
The court denied the motion. It held that the expired temporary stay, execution of the remand order, and filing of the notice of appeal meant that the federal court no longer had jurisdiction—legal authority—to decide the defendant’s motion. The notice of appeal gave the appeals court jurisdiction over the aspects of the case involved in the appeal and removed the federal district court’s control over those aspects.
The court distinguished the authorities cited by the defendant. The cited circuit-court decisions did not establish that this court retained jurisdiction, and the cited district-court decisions involved stays issued before remand, before a remand motion was decided, or before the limited automatic stay expired.
Additional Observation
The court added that, even if the defendant had filed the motion before the limited stay expired, it remained highly doubtful that the defendant could show that a permanent stay pending appeal was warranted. The court therefore denied the defendant’s motion to stay execution of the remand order pending appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.