On December 11, 2025, Justice Boddie of the Kings County Commercial Division issued a decision in Yes I Can Licensed Behavior Analyst PLLC v. Green Tree Capital, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op. 34815(U), holding that paying a judgment does not extinguish the right to appeal it, explaining:
As to Green Tree’s contention that the Court presently lacks the jurisdiction to vacate the second judgment because such judgment has already been satisfied, that argument is without merit. Plaintiff relies on the First Department’s non-binding 1982 decision in HD.I. Diamonds, Inc., which stated that Judgment which is paid and satisfied of record ceases to have any existence since defendant, by paying amount due, extinguishes judgment and obligation thereunder.
However, as plaintiffs correctly note, this proposition has been expressly rejected by more recent and binding Second Department authority. In Smithtown Gen. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 111 AD2d 382, 383 [2d Dept 1985], the Second Department squarely held:
Nor can we accept plaintiff’s argument, made in reliance on HD.I. Diamonds v. Frederick Model!, Inc., 86 A.D.2d 561, 446 N. Y. S.2d 283 (1st Dept.1982), appeal dismissed 56 N.Y.2d 645, that since defendant satisfied the judgment, Special Term lacked jurisdiction to vacate it. We cannot agree that a tender of a check by defendant, issued for whatever bizarre reason, would strip a court of its jurisdiction over the action, and nothing in the statute would so limit a court’s jurisdiction.
The rationale underlying HD.I. Diamonds has also been questioned by courts within the First Department. In Fox Rothschild LLP v Tech Talk Media, LLC, 85 Misc 3d 1242(A) [Sup Ct 2025], the court explained:
The holding in HD.I. Diamonds is open to question. The tum-of-the-20th-Century decisions on which it relies do not directly stand for the conclusion reached in that case. Nor does it address a contrary First Department decision from that period. It is difficult to reconcile the HD.I. Diamonds rule with the longstanding principle that payment of a judgment by a losing party does not terminate its right to appeal unless made by way of compromise or agreement not to pursue an appeal. For that matter, HD.I. Diamonds would appear to clash with CPLR 5015 (d), which provides that [w]here a judgment or order is set aside or vacated, the court may direct and enforce restitution in the same manner as provided for under CPLR 5523 when a judgment is reversed or modified on appeal.
Based on the foregoing, the branch of plaintiffs’ motion seeking leave to amend their complaint is granted, and the Second Amended Verified Complaint is deemed filed and accepted. Defendant shall serve and file an Answer or otherwise respond to the Second Amended Verified Complaint within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Decision and Order.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).