Brown v. Keating

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Keating

166 A.D.2d 220

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

DecidedOctober 9, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 166 A.D.2d 220 (Brown v. Keating) 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

Brown v. Keating, 166 A.D.2d 220 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on March 21, 1990, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff exclusive possession of the marital apartment and directed the defendant to make payments relating to the maintenance of the marital apartment, is unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

The plaintiffs hearing testimony, while contradicted by the testimony of the defendant, was nonetheless found credible in establishing repeated physical and verbal attacks by defendant. No reason appears to disturb the IAS court’s finding that an award of exclusive possession was necessary to protect the safety of persons and property, and was warranted by the existence of the extreme domestic strife (see, Delli Venneri v Delli Venneri, 120 AD2d 238, 240).

An order of the Family Court, New York County, granting mutual orders of protection to the parties, was not entitled to collateral estoppel or res judicata effect because the Family Court matter was settled by stipulation, without prejudice (Kaufman v Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449, 456-457). Further, the Family Court proceeding for an order of protection and the Supreme Court proceeding for exclusive possession lacked the [221]*221identity required for issue or claim preclusion. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on March 21, 1990, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff exclusive possession of the marital apartment and directed the defendant to make payments relating to the maintenance of the marital apartment, is unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

The plaintiffs hearing testimony, while contradicted by the testimony of the defendant, was nonetheless found credible in establishing repeated physical and verbal attacks by defendant. No reason appears to disturb the IAS court’s finding that an award of exclusive possession was necessary to protect the safety of persons and property, and was warranted by the existence of the extreme domestic strife (see, Delli Venneri v Delli Venneri, 120 AD2d 238, 240).

An order of the Family Court, New York County, granting mutual orders of protection to the parties, was not entitled to collateral estoppel or res judicata effect because the Family Court matter was settled by stipulation, without prejudice (Kaufman v Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449, 456-457). Further, the Family Court proceeding for an order of protection and the Supreme Court proceeding for exclusive possession lacked the [221]*221identity required for issue or claim preclusion. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-keating-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack