Babigian v. Wachtler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Babigian v. Wachtler

181 A.D.2d 640

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 181 A.D.2d 640 (Babigian v. Wachtler) 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

Babigian v. Wachtler, 181 A.D.2d 640 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (C. Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered March 19, 1991, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The same cause of action, being raised herein, was directly addressed in Babigian v Wachtler (69 NY2d 1012) and, thus, the action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata (Matter of Reilly v Reid, 45 NY2d 24). Although plaintiff notes that recent court rules now permit Housing Judges to impose sanctions (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.4), such rules clearly do not affect the constitutionality of CCA 110 (e). Moreover, the power to impose sanctions is part of a Housing Judge’s dispute resolution authority. As for plaintiff’s claim that the Court of Appeals erred in Babigian (supra), this Court has no power to review any such claim. It is for the Court of Appeals to pass on the continued validity of its earlier decisions (see, Carnesi v State of New York, 140 AD2d 912, 913). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (C. Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered March 19, 1991, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The same cause of action, being raised herein, was directly addressed in Babigian v Wachtler (69 NY2d 1012) and, thus, the action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata (Matter of Reilly v Reid, 45 NY2d 24). Although plaintiff notes that recent court rules now permit Housing Judges to impose sanctions (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.4), such rules clearly do not affect the constitutionality of CCA 110 (e). Moreover, the power to impose sanctions is part of a Housing Judge’s dispute resolution authority. As for plaintiff’s claim that the Court of Appeals erred in Babigian (supra), this Court has no power to review any such claim. It is for the Court of Appeals to pass on the continued validity of its earlier decisions (see, Carnesi v State of New York, 140 AD2d 912, 913). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/babigian-v-wachtler-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack