Coffey v. CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coffey v. CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P.

117 A.D.3d 585, 986 N.Y.S.2d 448

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

DecidedMay 20, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.D.3d 585 (Coffey v. CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P.) 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

Coffey v. CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P., 117 A.D.3d 585, 986 N.Y.S.2d 448 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered April 2, 2013, inter alia, declaring the option agreement rescinded, and ordering defendants to release and return the escrowed down payments, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court correctly found that defendants are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from relitigating the issues raised here, since those issues were fully and fairly litigated in the administrative proceeding that culminated in the hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding/reformation action, which affirmed a determination by the Office of the Attorney General allowing certain purchasers similarly situated to plaintiff to rescind their option agreements (see Matter of CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P. v Cuomo, 101 AD3d 473 [1st Dept 2012]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, Andrias, Saxe and Clark, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered April 2, 2013, inter alia, declaring the option agreement rescinded, and ordering defendants to release and return the escrowed down payments, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court correctly found that defendants are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from relitigating the issues raised here, since those issues were fully and fairly litigated in the administrative proceeding that culminated in the hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding/reformation action, which affirmed a determination by the Office of the Attorney General allowing certain purchasers similarly situated to plaintiff to rescind their option agreements (see Matter of CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P. v Cuomo, 101 AD3d 473 [1st Dept 2012]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, Andrias, Saxe and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.3d 585, 986 N.Y.S.2d 448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coffey-v-crpextell-parcel-i-lp-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack