Bikman v. 595 Broadway Associates

88 A.D.3d 455, 930 N.Y.2d 435
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 4, 2011·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Plaintiff cannot show a meritorious cause of action, as required to vacate her default, because her claims have been fully litigated in prior proceedings and the doctrine of res judicata bars her from relitigating them (see O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]). Furthermore, given plaintiffs history of frivolous litigation, the court properly enjoined her from bringing any further actions against defend[456] ant relating to these claims without court approval (see e.g. Matter of Sud v Sud, 227 AD2d 319 [1996]).

We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Renwick, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 30118(U).]

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

Bikman v. 595 Broadway Associates, 88 A.D.3d 455, 930 N.Y.2d 435 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

88 A.D.3d 455 (Bikman v. 595 Broadway Associates) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wiltz v. New York City
2021 NY Slip Op 00646 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Abe v. New York Univ.
2019 NY Slip Op 989 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Jiggetts v. New York City Human Resources Admin.
2017 NY Slip Op 9236 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Lipin v. Hunt
137 A.D.3d 518 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Lipin v. Danske Bank
130 A.D.3d 470 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
AARISMAA, IV, JAAN A., MTR. OF
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
In re the Estate of Wagner
114 A.D.3d 1235 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)