Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, E.D. New York.
ST. GEORGE SEAPORT ASSOCIATES and Emanuel Development Group, Inc., Plaintiffs,v.CSX REALTY, INC., Ticor Title Guaranty Company, and Ticor Title InsuranceCompany, Defendants.
No. 90 CV 2271 (SJ).
June 15, 1992.
Ray Beckerman, New York City, for plaintiffs.
Ira Levine, Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, Garden City, N.Y., for defendant Ticor, Steven Bierman, Sidley & Austin, New York City, for defendant CSX Realty Inc.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHNSON, District Judge:
*1 Defendants Ticor Title Guaranty Company and Ticor Title Insurance Company has asked this court to furnish a brief statement explaining its entry of a final judgment granting partial summary judgment and dismissing the complaint. For the reasons stated below, the application is denied.
In Memorandum and Order dated August 27, 1991, Judge Dearie granted Ticor Title Guaranty Company and Ticor Title Insurance Company ("Ticor Defendants") partial summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. The above- titled action was subsequently transferred to this judge to whom the Ticor Defendants submitted a proposed judgment for entry. On December 10, 1991, the court directed the entry of final judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 54(b) granting partial summary judgment and dismissing the complaint against the Ticor Defendants. [FN1] Following Ticor's submission of the proposed judgment, but before its entry, the Second Circuit in Harriscom Svenska AB v. Harris Corp., 947 F.2d 627, 629 (2d Cir.1991)ruled that the district court was required to furnish a "brief reasoned explanation" for the entry of a final judgment on fewer than all claims in the action. A certification under Rule 54(b) which merely recites the language of the Rule is deemed insufficient.
Generally, the court should not "direct the entry of a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) if the same or closely related issues remain to be litigated against the undismissed defendants." Hogan v. Consolidated Rail Corporation et. al, Nos. 91-7625, -7627, slip op. at 2778 (2d Cir.1992). Certification should only be granted where interests of sound judicial administration and efficiency are served or where there exists some danger of hardship or injustice through delay in entering a final judgment which could be alleviated by appeal. Id. at 2779.
Upon reviewing the remaining claims in this action, the court finds that some of the claims against CSX involve closely related questions of law. Namely, whether the preferential right to the subject parcel of land created in favor of the New York Department of Transportation by Section 18 of New York Transportation Law voided the title warranted by CSX as plaintiff contends. Having found no danger of hardship or injustice that will result from a delay in entering final judgment, that part of the judgment entered on December 10, 1991 dismissing the complaint against Ticor is hereby vacated.
For the foregoing reasons, Ticor's application is hereby denied and that part of the final judgment entered on December 10, 1991 granting partial summary judgment and dismissing the complaint is hereby vacated.
FN1. According to Rule 54(b), a court may "direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for entry of judgment."
1992 WL 151897, 1992 WL 151897 (E.D.N.Y.)
END OF DOCUMENT