that the SAP requirement that the puck pass “completely through” the goal was a nullity; and that “into and through” was satisfied if any part of the puck entered the opening, even if the puck did not pass completely through the opening. The trial court submitted the case to a jury, which found in favor of Mr. Giunto. The court ordered a new trial for reasons we need not explore here, and Mr. Giunto appealed the new trial order. The Sponsors cross appealed, contending that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We agree with the Sponsors. The Sponsors, in their motion for directed verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, claimed that Mr. Giunto’s claims were barred because the contest judge had made the determination that Mr. 467 N.Y.S.2d 665, 666 (1983) (<HOLDING>); cf. National Collegiate Athletic Assoc. v.
holding that rule 60b1 relied is available only where 1 a party has made an excusable litigation mistake or an attorney in the litigation has acted without authority from a party or 2 where the judge has made a substantive mistake of law or fact in the final judgment or order holding that the decisions of the independent judging organization would be final unless there has been a fraud intentional or gross mistake irregularity or lack of good faith holding that decisions of the tournament committee would be final unless there was fraud intentional or gross mistake or lack of good faith holding that while the creditor has the initial burden to produce some evidence of lack of good faith the ultimate burden is on the debtor to prove his good faith holding that this courts review of board decisions is limited to final orders or final decisions