When the appellate division grants permission to appeal to the court of appeals, its order granting such permission shall state that questions of law have arisen which in its opinion ought to be reviewed. When the appeal is from a nonfinal order, the order granting such permission shall also state that the findings of fact have been affirmed, or reversed or modified and new findings of fact made, or have not been considered, shall specify the findings of fact which have been reversed or modified and set forth new findings of fact with at least the same particularity as was employed for the findings of fact below and shall certify the questions of law decisive of the correctness of its determination or of any separable portion of it.
§ 5713.Content of order granting permission to appeal to court of appeals.
Article 57. Appeals to the Appellate Division · Last amended 1963 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceCPLR 5713 specifies what the Appellate Division must include in an order granting permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals, including a statement that reviewable legal questions have arisen and, for nonfinal orders, findings of fact and certified questions of law.
Full Text of CPLR 5713
Plain-English Summary
When the Appellate Division agrees to let a case move on to the Court of Appeals, CPLR 5713 tells it what the permission order itself has to say.
At minimum, the order has to state that questions of law have arisen that the Appellate Division believes ought to be reviewed. That statement is what justifies sending the case up at all.
If the appeal is from a nonfinal order, more is required. The permission order also has to address the findings of fact: whether they were affirmed, reversed or modified with new findings made, or not considered at all. If findings were reversed or modified, the order has to specify which ones and set out the new findings with at least the same detail used below. And the order has to certify the questions of law that will decide whether the Appellate Division's determination, or any separable part of it, was correct.
Taken together, these requirements make sure the Court of Appeals receives a clear roadmap, what legal questions it's being asked to answer, and what the factual record looks like, before it takes up a case the Appellate Division has chosen to send its way.
Frequently Asked Questions
What must the Appellate Division state when granting permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals?
That questions of law have arisen that, in the Appellate Division's opinion, ought to be reviewed.
What extra requirements apply to permission orders for nonfinal orders?
The order must also address findings of fact, whether affirmed, reversed or modified, or not considered, specify any findings that were reversed or modified, set out new findings, and certify the decisive questions of law.
What does it mean to 'certify' questions of law under CPLR 5713?
It means the Appellate Division's order identifies the specific legal questions that will decide whether its determination, or a separable part of it, was correct.
Why does the Appellate Division have to detail findings of fact when granting permission to appeal?
So the Court of Appeals has a clear factual record to work from, since findings not addressed in the order can trigger the presumptions in CPLR 5612.
How does CPLR 5713 relate to CPLR 5602?
CPLR 5602 is the section under which the Appellate Division grants permission to appeal. CPLR 5713 governs what the resulting permission order must contain.
Advisory Committee Notes
This section states the required content of all orders of the Appellate Division granting permission to appeal. As to appeals on certified questions, the rule operates in conjunction with § 5614. The notes to § 5614 on discretion and on inapplicability when there is no finding of fact below apply to this rule.
The first sentence of the section applies to all orders of the Appellate Division granting permission to appeal. It is taken from the second half of subparagraph (a) of subd 4 of former § 589 with one change—the word “certify” is replaced by the word “state” so as to avoid confusion with appeals on certified questions which always relate to nonfinal orders of the Appellate Division. The last sentence of the section only applies to orders granting permission to appeal from such nonfinal orders and is taken from part of subparagraph (b) of subd 4 of former § 589 and part of former § 603. CPA § 603 was enacted in 1942 to establish certainty and soundness in appeals practice on certified questions where the case might have turned on issues of fact or discretion and the record did not show the disposition of those issues by the Appellate Division. See 8 NY Jud Council Rep 433–34 (1942). Prior to the effective date of that section, the Court of Appeals, had at different times followed inconsistent approaches to the problem. See 7 NY Jud Council Rep 506–514 (1941); Cohen & Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals 379–381 (rev. ed. 1952). The section appears to have worked well and its provisions have been retained. See id. at 379–387.
This section places an affirmative duty upon the Appellate Division to comply with its provisions. In this respect, it differs from former § 603, which merely stated that a presumption, that findings of fact were made in favor of the party who was the respondent in the Court of Appeals, would have been operative unless the order granting permission met the requirements of the section. This change should permit the resettlement of an order of the Appellate Division granting permission to appeal without obtaining permission of the Court of Appeals. Under former law, the Court of Appeals might, of course, have given the appellant leave to apply to the Appellate Division for resettlement of the order; a common practice of the Court was to enter an order dismissing the appeal unless the appellant applied to the Appellate Division within thirty days for a resettlement of the order and such application was granted. See, e.g., Hilton Watch Co. v Benrus Watch Co. (1956) 1 NY2d 271, 135 NE2d 31. There is no case, however, indicating that resettlement might have been had without such leave under the former section. See Cohen & Karger, op. cit. supra at 384–85.
Amendment History
Add, L 1962, ch 308, eff Sept 1, 1963.
Source & verification. Provision text, History, and Advisory
Committee Notes are reproduced verbatim from the Consolidated Laws of New York.
Last verified July 21, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: appellate division permission order requirementscertify questions of law appealorder granting leave to appeal Court of Appeals5713 content requirements