Dye v. Lincoln First Bank

New York Court of Appeals

Dye v. Lincoln First Bank

344 N.E.2d 57, 38 N.Y.2d 769, 381 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2373

New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 4, 1975·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Memorandum. Order affirmed, with costs, on the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Appellate Division and because the prior grant of summary judgment, the "procedural equivalent of a trial” (Falk v Goodman, 7 NY2d 87, 91), is a binding final judgment on the merits which bars a subsequent action between the same parties for the same cause of action (Eidelberg v Zellermayer, 5 AD2d 658, 662-663, affd 6 NY2d 815; see, also, Klein v Gruss & Son, 18 AD2d 1085; Riley v Southern Transp. Co., 278 App Div 605; 6 Carmody-Wait, 2d, NY Practice, § 39:39, p 492).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

Memorandum. Order affirmed, with costs, on the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Appellate Division and because the prior grant of summary judgment, the "procedural equivalent of a trial” (Falk v Goodman, 7 NY2d 87, 91), is a binding final judgment on the merits which bars a subsequent action between the same parties for the same cause of action (Eidelberg v Zellermayer, 5 AD2d 658, 662-663, affd 6 NY2d 815; see, also, Klein v Gruss & Son, 18 AD2d 1085; Riley v Southern Transp. Co., 278 App Div 605; 6 Carmody-Wait, 2d, NY Practice, § 39:39, p 492).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Dye v. Lincoln First Bank, 344 N.E.2d 57, 38 N.Y.2d 769, 381 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2373 (N.Y. 1975).

Pincite

344 N.E.2d 57 (Dye v. Lincoln First Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related