Grasso v. Dime Savings Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grasso v. Dime Savings Bank

198 A.D.2d 329, 605 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10699

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 329 (Grasso v. Dime Savings Bank) 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

Grasso v. Dime Savings Bank, 198 A.D.2d 329, 605 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover mortgage proceeds, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered July 26, 1991, which dismissed their amended complaint. The plaintiffs’ notice of appeal from the order entered July 17, 1991, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

[330]*330Since the plaintiffs’ current claim arises out of the same transaction and factual grouping which existed in prior proceedings, this action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see, Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover mortgage proceeds, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered July 26, 1991, which dismissed their amended complaint. The plaintiffs’ notice of appeal from the order entered July 17, 1991, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

[330]*330Since the plaintiffs’ current claim arises out of the same transaction and factual grouping which existed in prior proceedings, this action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see, Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 329, 605 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grasso-v-dime-savings-bank-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack