A state appellate court has cleared the way for the Cayuga Nation to continue pursuing the enforcement of its court judgments in New York state court, rejecting key arguments that had challenged the legitimacy of the Nation’s legal system.
On June 6, the New York State Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, issued a memorandum and order affirming the result—but not the reasoning—of a lower court ruling that vacated default judgments originally granted to the Cayuga Nation for unpaid rent.
The case centers on judgments the Cayuga Nation Civil Court issued against eight Nation citizens who had lived in Nation-owned homes for years without paying rent. The Nation sought to have those judgments recognized under New York’s legal framework, using the same process available to judgments from other jurisdictions.
The individuals initially failed to appear in the New York proceedings, leading to default judgments in the Nation’s favor. But more than a year later, they reappeared in court and persuaded then-Acting Supreme Court Justice Barry L. Porsch to vacate the judgments. Porsch ruled that the cases should be litigated on the merits and questioned the Nation’s legal authority.
The Cayuga Nation appealed, calling Porsch’s conclusions “flawed reasoning that attacked the Nation’s court.” The Appellate Division ultimately allowed the individuals to continue participating in the litigation but declined to adopt any of Porsch’s rationale.
“Inasmuch as the evidence in the record does not establish that the Nation Court judgment was not ‘a fine or penalty’… the record does not establish that article 53 applies to the Nation Court judgment,” the appellate court wrote.
The decision means the cases return to the lower court, where the Cayuga Nation says it will “conclusively prove” that the original judgments stem solely from unpaid rent—not fines or penalties—and are enforceable under New York law.
In its press release, the Cayuga Nation said it issued the statement to “address misinformation by local news outlets” and emphasized that the Appellate Division “did not adopt a single part of Judge Porsch’s flawed decision nor did it adopt the arguments respondents raised regarding the Nation’s court.”




