Opinion
June 1, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (S. Leone, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
"It is settled jurisprudence that when an appellate court reverses a judgment, the rights of the parties are left `wholly unaffected by any previous adjudication'" ( Ceravole v. Giglio, 186 A.D.2d 170, quoting Taylor v. New York Life Ins. Co., 209 N.Y. 29, 34). The parties are left in the same position as though there had been no trial, and unless the appellate court in its decision and order directs that a new trial be limited in scope, it should be construed to require a new trial generally ( see, Ceravole v. Giglio, supra, at 170-171; see, Matter of Sipal Realty Corp. v. William, 15 A.D.2d 456).
Here, since the decision and order of this Court dated March 4, 1996, reversing the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs did not explicitly limit the scope of the new trial ( see, Enden v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 225 A.D.2d 515), the trial court correctly determined that the new trial would be as to all issues, including the viability of the defendant's affirmative defenses. Moreover, the trial court properly found that the defendant had not waived, and was not estopped from asserting, any of its defenses.
O'Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.