Decker v. Cady

New York County Courts

Decker v. Cady

84 Misc. 2d 42, 375 N.Y.S.2d 76, 1975 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3087

DecidedNovember 14, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 84 Misc. 2d 42 (Decker v. Cady) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York County Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Decker v. Cady, 84 Misc. 2d 42, 375 N.Y.S.2d 76, 1975 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3087 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Arnold W. Proskin, J.

The plaintiff has moved this court, at Special Term, for an order pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [b]) striking defendant’s affirmative defense, wherein it is alleged that payment of costs, as a result of a judgment in a prior action between the same parties herein, is a prerequisite to a commencement of this action. Defendant’s cross motion seeks dismissal of the action, arguing that the prior action is still pending until the judgment for costs has been satisfied.

An earlier suit was originally brought by the plaintiff in Rensselaer County Court, but was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment was entered for the defendant dismissing the action without prejudice and for the sum of $93, costs. Thereafter, plaintiff commenced a new action in this court, based upon the same operative facts.

In Porter v Kingsbury (77 NY 164), it was held that the defense of a former suit pending can only be supported by showing, as a matter of fact, that a former suit was actually pending when the second action was commenced and that such a defense cannot be supported by proof of an unsatisfied judgment against the plaintiff in a prior unsuccessful action upon the claim, which is the subject of the second action. The court noted in dicta that the defendants were at liberty to issue execution to collect costs awarded by the judgment. (See, also, Ferrandino v Cappelli, 12 AD2d 604.) This 1879 Court of Appeals case is still the law and, in my opinion, a good common-sense rule of law.

Plaintiff’s motion granted and defendant’s cross motion denied.

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

Arnold W. Proskin, J.

The plaintiff has moved this court, at Special Term, for an order pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [b]) striking defendant’s affirmative defense, wherein it is alleged that payment of costs, as a result of a judgment in a prior action between the same parties herein, is a prerequisite to a commencement of this action. Defendant’s cross motion seeks dismissal of the action, arguing that the prior action is still pending until the judgment for costs has been satisfied.

An earlier suit was originally brought by the plaintiff in Rensselaer County Court, but was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment was entered for the defendant dismissing the action without prejudice and for the sum of $93, costs. Thereafter, plaintiff commenced a new action in this court, based upon the same operative facts.

In Porter v Kingsbury (77 NY 164), it was held that the defense of a former suit pending can only be supported by showing, as a matter of fact, that a former suit was actually pending when the second action was commenced and that such a defense cannot be supported by proof of an unsatisfied judgment against the plaintiff in a prior unsuccessful action upon the claim, which is the subject of the second action. The court noted in dicta that the defendants were at liberty to issue execution to collect costs awarded by the judgment. (See, also, Ferrandino v Cappelli, 12 AD2d 604.) This 1879 Court of Appeals case is still the law and, in my opinion, a good common-sense rule of law.

Plaintiff’s motion granted and defendant’s cross motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 Misc. 2d 42, 375 N.Y.S.2d 76, 1975 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/decker-v-cady-nycountyct-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack