Glantz v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glantz v. City of New York

116 A.D.2d 498, 497 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51350

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 116 A.D.2d 498 (Glantz v. City of New York) 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

Glantz v. City of New York, 116 A.D.2d 498, 497 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51350 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

[499]*499Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered on April 17, 1984, and the judgment of said court entered thereon on April 20, 1984, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment directing the payment of additional interest on condemnation awards made to them pursuant to a final decree of the Supreme Court in Queens County, are unanimously reversed, on the law, defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint granted and plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment denied, without costs or disbursements.

The situation presented here is virtually identical to that involved in Adventurers Whitestone Corp. v City of New York (65 NY2d 83), wherein the Court of Appeals concluded that the claimant was precluded from litigating in a second action an issue which it could have raised in the condemnation proceeding. Consequently, defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint should be granted. Concur&emdash;Sandler, J. P., Milonas, Kassal, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

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

[499]*499Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered on April 17, 1984, and the judgment of said court entered thereon on April 20, 1984, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment directing the payment of additional interest on condemnation awards made to them pursuant to a final decree of the Supreme Court in Queens County, are unanimously reversed, on the law, defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint granted and plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment denied, without costs or disbursements.

The situation presented here is virtually identical to that involved in Adventurers Whitestone Corp. v City of New York (65 NY2d 83), wherein the Court of Appeals concluded that the claimant was precluded from litigating in a second action an issue which it could have raised in the condemnation proceeding. Consequently, defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint should be granted. Concur&emdash;Sandler, J. P., Milonas, Kassal, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 498, 497 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glantz-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack