Dale Mortgage Bankers Corp. v. Allington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dale Mortgage Bankers Corp. v. Allington

237 A.D.2d 832, 656 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2743

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 832 (Dale Mortgage Bankers Corp. v. Allington) 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

Dale Mortgage Bankers Corp. v. Allington, 237 A.D.2d 832, 656 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2743 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Crew III, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Relihan, Jr., J.), entered March 19, 1996 in Tompkins County, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion to declare certain moneys surplus funds.

On this appeal, plaintiff attempts to argue the very issue previously addressed and decided by this Court on plaintiff’s prior appeal in this matter (217 AD2d 739, lv denied 87 NY2d 804)—namely, the nature of certain insurance proceeds and [833]*833the party to whom said proceeds should be distributed. That issue having been conclusively resolved, plaintiff is barred from relitigating that issue under the doctrine of res judicata (see, O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357). To the extent that plaintiff seeks to avail itself of this Court’s subsequent decision in Melino v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (213 AD2d 86, appeal dismissed 87 NY2d 897), we need note only that " '[t]he conclusive effect of a final disposition is not to be disturbed by a subsequent change in decisional law’ ” (Matter of Gowan v Tully, 45 NY2d 32, 36, quoting Slater v American Min. Spirits Co., 33 NY2d 443, 447).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

Crew III, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Relihan, Jr., J.), entered March 19, 1996 in Tompkins County, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion to declare certain moneys surplus funds.

On this appeal, plaintiff attempts to argue the very issue previously addressed and decided by this Court on plaintiff’s prior appeal in this matter (217 AD2d 739, lv denied 87 NY2d 804)—namely, the nature of certain insurance proceeds and [833]*833the party to whom said proceeds should be distributed. That issue having been conclusively resolved, plaintiff is barred from relitigating that issue under the doctrine of res judicata (see, O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357). To the extent that plaintiff seeks to avail itself of this Court’s subsequent decision in Melino v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (213 AD2d 86, appeal dismissed 87 NY2d 897), we need note only that " '[t]he conclusive effect of a final disposition is not to be disturbed by a subsequent change in decisional law’ ” (Matter of Gowan v Tully, 45 NY2d 32, 36, quoting Slater v American Min. Spirits Co., 33 NY2d 443, 447).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 832, 656 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dale-mortgage-bankers-corp-v-allington-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack