Gramercy Holding Corp. v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gramercy Holding Corp. v. Cohen

260 A.D.2d 542, 686 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4118

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

DecidedApril 19, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D.2d 542 (Gramercy Holding Corp. v. Cohen) 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

Gramercy Holding Corp. v. Cohen, 260 A.D.2d 542, 686 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover overdue rent, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered September 25, 1998, as dismissed his first and second affirmative defenses and his first counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendant’s first and second affirmative defenses and his first counterclaim are barred by the doctrine of res judicata as the issues raised therein could have been raised and resolved in a prior proceeding between the parties (see generally, D.C.I. Danaco Contrs. v Associated Univs., 248 AD2d 663; Coliseum Towers Assocs. v County of Nassau, 217 AD2d 387, 390; Koether v Generalow, 213 AD2d 379, 380).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover overdue rent, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered September 25, 1998, as dismissed his first and second affirmative defenses and his first counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendant’s first and second affirmative defenses and his first counterclaim are barred by the doctrine of res judicata as the issues raised therein could have been raised and resolved in a prior proceeding between the parties (see generally, D.C.I. Danaco Contrs. v Associated Univs., 248 AD2d 663; Coliseum Towers Assocs. v County of Nassau, 217 AD2d 387, 390; Koether v Generalow, 213 AD2d 379, 380).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 542, 686 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gramercy-holding-corp-v-cohen-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack