715 & Peter Davey v. Jones Hirsch Connors & Bull P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

715 & Peter Davey v. Jones Hirsch Connors & Bull P.C.

138 A.D.3d 417, 27 N.Y.S.3d 867

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

DecidedApril 5, 2016

Docket100500/13 -938

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 138 A.D.3d 417 (715 & Peter Davey v. Jones Hirsch Connors & Bull P.C.) 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

715 & Peter Davey v. Jones Hirsch Connors & Bull P.C., 138 A.D.3d 417, 27 N.Y.S.3d 867 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathryn E. Freed, J.), entered December 22, 2014, which effectively granted plaintiff’s motion to reargue, and, upon reargument, adhered to the order, same court (Louis *418 B. York, J.), entered March 7, 2014, which had granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the court on the reargument motion stated that re-argument was denied, the court addressed the merits of the motion, and thus effectively granted reargument, rendering the order appealable (see Granite State Ins. Co. v Transatlantic Reins. Co., 132 AD3d 479, 484 [1st Dept 2015]). On reargument, the motion court properly adhered to the original determination, which had dismissed the complaint on res judicata and/or collateral estoppel grounds, since plaintiff’s claims against defendant had already been litigated and decided on the merits in (see e.g. Davey v Jones, 2008 WL 5061631, 2008 US Dist LEXIS 99828 [SD NY, Dec. 1, 2008, No. 06-Civ-4206 (DC)], affd 371 Fed Appx 146, 148-149 [2d Cir 2010]; see Matter of Josey v Goord, 9 NY3d 386, 389-390 [2007]; see also Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]; see also Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 485 [1979]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.

Motion to strike brief and for other relief denied.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathryn E. Freed, J.), entered December 22, 2014, which effectively granted plaintiff’s motion to reargue, and, upon reargument, adhered to the order, same court (Louis *418 B. York, J.), entered March 7, 2014, which had granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the court on the reargument motion stated that re-argument was denied, the court addressed the merits of the motion, and thus effectively granted reargument, rendering the order appealable (see Granite State Ins. Co. v Transatlantic Reins. Co., 132 AD3d 479, 484 [1st Dept 2015]). On reargument, the motion court properly adhered to the original determination, which had dismissed the complaint on res judicata and/or collateral estoppel grounds, since plaintiff’s claims against defendant had already been litigated and decided on the merits in (see e.g. Davey v Jones, 2008 WL 5061631, 2008 US Dist LEXIS 99828 [SD NY, Dec. 1, 2008, No. 06-Civ-4206 (DC)], affd 371 Fed Appx 146, 148-149 [2d Cir 2010]; see Matter of Josey v Goord, 9 NY3d 386, 389-390 [2007]; see also Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]; see also Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 485 [1979]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.

Motion to strike brief and for other relief denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 417, 27 N.Y.S.3d 867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/715-peter-davey-v-jones-hirsch-connors-bull-pc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack