Green v. Tinto Funding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Green v. Tinto Funding Corp.

162 A.D.2d 587, 559 N.Y.S.2d 167, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7592

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

DecidedJune 18, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 162 A.D.2d 587 (Green v. Tinto Funding Corp.) 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

Green v. Tinto Funding Corp., 162 A.D.2d 587, 559 N.Y.S.2d 167, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated March 23,1989, which, upon an order of the same court, dated February 28, 1989, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, is in favor of the defendants and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the instant action, alleging fraud and breach of contract by the purchasers at the foreclosure sale of the plaintiffs’ home, was barred under the doctrine of collateral estoppel inasmuch as the gravamen of this action is identical to that of the plaintiffs’ prior action seeking to vacate the sale on the ground, inter alia, of collusion. Having had that issue decided against them, the plaintiffs may not relitigate it in a subsequent action (see, Kaufman v Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449; O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353; Gilberg v Barbieri, 53 NY2d 285). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated March 23,1989, which, upon an order of the same court, dated February 28, 1989, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, is in favor of the defendants and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the instant action, alleging fraud and breach of contract by the purchasers at the foreclosure sale of the plaintiffs’ home, was barred under the doctrine of collateral estoppel inasmuch as the gravamen of this action is identical to that of the plaintiffs’ prior action seeking to vacate the sale on the ground, inter alia, of collusion. Having had that issue decided against them, the plaintiffs may not relitigate it in a subsequent action (see, Kaufman v Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449; O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353; Gilberg v Barbieri, 53 NY2d 285). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 587, 559 N.Y.S.2d 167, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-tinto-funding-corp-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack