366 Bomar Co. v. Smith, Jackson & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

366 Bomar Co. v. Smith, Jackson & Co.

51 A.D.2d 786, 379 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11353

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 17, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 786 (366 Bomar Co. v. Smith, Jackson & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

366 Bomar Co. v. Smith, Jackson & Co., 51 A.D.2d 786, 379 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11353 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action on a lease, defendant ADA Financial Service Corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 7, 1975, which denied its motion to dismiss the third cause of action asserted in the amended complaint. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Appellant’s time to answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. Appellant seeks dismissal on the ground of res judicata. Whether the guarantee was comprehended in the stipulation of dismissal, with prejudice, in the previous action is not ascertainable from the existing stipulation. Such uncertainty precludes application of either the doctrine of res judicata or the doctrine of collateral estoppel (cf. Lawlor v National Screen Serv., 349 US 322). Cohalan, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action on a lease, defendant ADA Financial Service Corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 7, 1975, which denied its motion to dismiss the third cause of action asserted in the amended complaint. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Appellant’s time to answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. Appellant seeks dismissal on the ground of res judicata. Whether the guarantee was comprehended in the stipulation of dismissal, with prejudice, in the previous action is not ascertainable from the existing stipulation. Such uncertainty precludes application of either the doctrine of res judicata or the doctrine of collateral estoppel (cf. Lawlor v National Screen Serv., 349 US 322). Cohalan, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 786, 379 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/366-bomar-co-v-smith-jackson-co-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack