Glatzer v. Enron Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glatzer v. Enron Corp.

277 A.D.2d 161, 716 N.Y.S.2d 307, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12451

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 28, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered July 20, 1999, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly held that the United States District Court order of June 10, 1998 collaterally estops plaintiff from asserting that the idea he claims that defendants misappropriated was novel, and precludes all of plaintiff’s causes of action herein. The stipulated withdrawal of plaintiff’s appeal to the Second Circuit left the District Court’s order intact. There is no merit to plaintiffs argument that his attorney’s alleged ineptitude deprived him of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the motion underlying the Federal court order. On the contrary, the record indicates that the attorney vigorously litigated plaintiffs claims. In view of the foregoing, plaintiffs remaining points are moot. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered July 20, 1999, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly held that the United States District Court order of June 10, 1998 collaterally estops plaintiff from asserting that the idea he claims that defendants misappropriated was novel, and precludes all of plaintiff’s causes of action herein. The stipulated withdrawal of plaintiff’s appeal to the Second Circuit left the District Court’s order intact. There is no merit to plaintiffs argument that his attorney’s alleged ineptitude deprived him of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the motion underlying the Federal court order. On the contrary, the record indicates that the attorney vigorously litigated plaintiffs claims. In view of the foregoing, plaintiffs remaining points are moot. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Glatzer v. Enron Corp., 277 A.D.2d 161, 716 N.Y.S.2d 307, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

277 A.D.2d 161 (Glatzer v. Enron Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related