Frenk v. Solomon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frenk v. Solomon

123 A.D.3d 416, 998 N.Y.S.2d 42

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

DecidedDecember 2, 2014

Docket13642 650298/13

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 416 (Frenk v. Solomon) 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

Frenk v. Solomon, 123 A.D.3d 416, 998 N.Y.S.2d 42 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered December 23, 2013, on the record of a hearing dated December 18, 2013, so-ordered by the court on January 17, 2014, and corrected by stipulation entered January 27, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment, replevin, conversion, bailment, constructive trust, accounting, and unjust enrichment causes of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given plaintiff’s allegations raising the inference that the stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice and the general release of claims in a prior action were not intended to encompass the instant claims, and her allegations of fraudulent inducement raising equitable considerations, the court correctly declined to grant defendants’ motion to dismiss the causes of action indicated above at this pre-answer stage based on the doctrine of res judicata or enforcement of the general release (see Mangini v McClurg, 24 NY2d 556, 562 [1969]; Singleton Mgt. v Compere, 243 AD2d 213, 216 n [1st Dept 1998]; Dolitsky’s Dry Cleaners v YL Jericho Dry Cleaners, 203 AD2d 322 [2d Dept 1994]). Given the outstanding issues as to the viability and scope of the instant claims, the court correctly declined to dismiss the claims of replevin and conversion on statute of limitations grounds.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered December 23, 2013, on the record of a hearing dated December 18, 2013, so-ordered by the court on January 17, 2014, and corrected by stipulation entered January 27, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment, replevin, conversion, bailment, constructive trust, accounting, and unjust enrichment causes of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given plaintiff’s allegations raising the inference that the stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice and the general release of claims in a prior action were not intended to encompass the instant claims, and her allegations of fraudulent inducement raising equitable considerations, the court correctly declined to grant defendants’ motion to dismiss the causes of action indicated above at this pre-answer stage based on the doctrine of res judicata or enforcement of the general release (see Mangini v McClurg, 24 NY2d 556, 562 [1969]; Singleton Mgt. v Compere, 243 AD2d 213, 216 n [1st Dept 1998]; Dolitsky’s Dry Cleaners v YL Jericho Dry Cleaners, 203 AD2d 322 [2d Dept 1994]). Given the outstanding issues as to the viability and scope of the instant claims, the court correctly declined to dismiss the claims of replevin and conversion on statute of limitations grounds.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 416, 998 N.Y.S.2d 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frenk-v-solomon-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack