Eshaghian v. Eshaghian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eshaghian v. Eshaghian

2017 NY Slip Op 244, 146 A.D.3d 529, 43 N.Y.S.3d 902

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 2017

Docket2731 654481/15

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 244 (Eshaghian v. Eshaghian) 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

Eshaghian v. Eshaghian, 2017 NY Slip Op 244, 146 A.D.3d 529, 43 N.Y.S.3d 902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about June 13, 2016, which, among other things, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and granted defendants-respondents’ cross motion for summary judgment on their counterclaims and for sanctions against plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court correctly determined that plaintiff’s action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see Landau, P.C. v LaRossa, Mitchell & Ross, 11 NY3d 8, 12 [2008]), because he is essentially seeking to relitigate the validity of a side agreement that was at issue and decided in a Surrogate’s Court proceeding. The side agreement and the parties’ letter agreement are intertwined and part of the same real estate transaction (see Wietschner v Dimon, 139 AD3d 461, 461 [1st Dept 2016], Iv denied 28 NY3d 901 [2016]). By the terms of the letter agreement, defendants, as the prevailing parties in the Surrogate’s Court proceeding, are entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in that proceeding. The sanctions imposed by the motion court were appropriate (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a]).

*530 We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments, including defendants’ request for sanctions for this appeal, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Maz-zarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about June 13, 2016, which, among other things, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and granted defendants-respondents’ cross motion for summary judgment on their counterclaims and for sanctions against plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court correctly determined that plaintiff’s action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see Landau, P.C. v LaRossa, Mitchell & Ross, 11 NY3d 8, 12 [2008]), because he is essentially seeking to relitigate the validity of a side agreement that was at issue and decided in a Surrogate’s Court proceeding. The side agreement and the parties’ letter agreement are intertwined and part of the same real estate transaction (see Wietschner v Dimon, 139 AD3d 461, 461 [1st Dept 2016], Iv denied 28 NY3d 901 [2016]). By the terms of the letter agreement, defendants, as the prevailing parties in the Surrogate’s Court proceeding, are entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in that proceeding. The sanctions imposed by the motion court were appropriate (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a]).

*530 We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments, including defendants’ request for sanctions for this appeal, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Maz-zarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 244, 146 A.D.3d 529, 43 N.Y.S.3d 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eshaghian-v-eshaghian-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack