## Facts

- Three Onondaga County Court judges sued state court administrative officials and other state officers seeking declaratory relief, back pay retroactive to October 1, 1978, and attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
- The complaint alleged equal protection violations based on salary disparities between the plaintiffs and higher-paid county court judges in other counties, and between plaintiffs and Court of Claims judges, asserting no rational basis for the differences.
- Supreme Court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on the first cause of action challenging one identified disparity, awarded back pay, and ruled plaintiffs were entitled to § 1988 fees, but reserved determination of the fee amount for a later hearing; it dismissed the remaining causes of action.
- Plaintiffs appealed the dismissals; the State did not cross-appeal from the summary-judgment ruling on liability.
- While plaintiffs’ appeal was pending, Supreme Court entered a later judgment fixing back pay and the amount of attorney’s fees.
- The State appealed from the later judgment and sought review of the earlier liability determination; plaintiffs argued the State was barred because it had not cross-appealed earlier.
- The Appellate Division refused to review the liability determination, treating the earlier judgment as “final” and thus not reviewable on the later appeal under CPLR 5501(a)(1).

## Issues

1. Whether a judgment that decides liability and entitlement to attorney’s fees, but leaves the amount of fees to be determined later, is “final” so as to bar later appellate review absent a timely appeal or cross-appeal.
2. Whether, under CPLR 5501(a)(1), an appeal from the later judgment fixing damages and fee amount brings up for review an earlier nonfinal judgment or order that necessarily affects the final judgment and has not been reviewed.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held that the Appellate Division erred in refusing to consider the State’s challenge to the earlier liability ruling.
- The earlier judgment was not “final” in the relevant sense because it left unresolved the amount of attorney’s fees, an element of the relief sought.
- The later judgment fixing damages and the fee amount was the final judgment, and an appeal from it permitted review of the prior nonfinal liability determination under CPLR 5501(a)(1).
- The Court rejected treating the earlier liability ruling as separately final through implied severance in these circumstances.
- The Court reversed to the extent the Appellate Division declined to reach the merits of the State’s proffered challenge on finality grounds.

## Legal Principles

- A judgment is final only when it completely disposes of all causes of action and all relief between the parties; a ruling that reserves the amount of attorney’s fees for later determination is nonfinal.
- Under CPLR 5501(a)(1), an appeal from a final judgment brings up for review any earlier nonfinal judgment or order that necessarily affects the final judgment and has not already been reviewed.
- “Implied severance” should not be applied broadly to treat parts of a case as separately final when doing so would fragment appellate review and encourage piecemeal appeals.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals clarified that when attorney’s fees are awarded but their amount remains to be set, the judgment is nonfinal, and an appeal from the later judgment that fixes fees and damages allows review of prior nonfinal determinations that necessarily affect the final judgment under CPLR 5501(a)(1).


Burke v. Crosson, 85 N.Y.2d 10, 623 N.Y.S.2d 524, 647 N.E.2d 736 (1995)