Dinerstein & Lesser v. Berger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dinerstein & Lesser v. Berger

115 A.D.2d 518, 496 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54929

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.2d 518 (Dinerstein & Lesser v. Berger) 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

Dinerstein & Lesser v. Berger, 115 A.D.2d 518, 496 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54929 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover a share of legal fees from the defendant Berger and the defendant law firm, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated August 8, 1984, which, upon reargument, denied their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) on the ground of collateral estoppel.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Defendants’ claim that the present action is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel is refuted by the record, which clearly indicates that plaintiffs were never parties to the prior proceeding which allegedly serves as the basis for the instant claim. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Fiber, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover a share of legal fees from the defendant Berger and the defendant law firm, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated August 8, 1984, which, upon reargument, denied their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) on the ground of collateral estoppel.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Defendants’ claim that the present action is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel is refuted by the record, which clearly indicates that plaintiffs were never parties to the prior proceeding which allegedly serves as the basis for the instant claim. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 518, 496 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dinerstein-lesser-v-berger-nyappdiv-1985.