Glendora v. Gallicano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glendora v. Gallicano

206 A.D.2d 455, 615 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7441

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

DecidedJuly 18, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 206 A.D.2d 455 (Glendora v. Gallicano) 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

Glendora v. Gallicano, 206 A.D.2d 455, 615 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7441 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the [456]*456Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered August 9, 1993, which, inter alia, granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to enter a default judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the plaintiff was collaterally estopped and barred by res judicata from relitigating her claim regarding overcharges for electricity she did not use (see, Boronow v Boronow, 71 NY2d 284; Kaufman v Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449, 455; Matter of Manshul Constr. Corp. v New York City School Constr. Auth., 192 AD2d 659).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the [456]*456Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered August 9, 1993, which, inter alia, granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to enter a default judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the plaintiff was collaterally estopped and barred by res judicata from relitigating her claim regarding overcharges for electricity she did not use (see, Boronow v Boronow, 71 NY2d 284; Kaufman v Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449, 455; Matter of Manshul Constr. Corp. v New York City School Constr. Auth., 192 AD2d 659).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 455, 615 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glendora-v-gallicano-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack