Haberman v. Emanuel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haberman v. Emanuel

189 A.D.2d 556, 592 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 25

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 189 A.D.2d 556 (Haberman v. Emanuel) 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

Haberman v. Emanuel, 189 A.D.2d 556, 592 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 25 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), both entered on September 12, 1991, granting defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and awarding defendants legal fees aggregating $3850, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff alleged that defendants had "conspired together, and willfully and maliciously entered into a scheme” to deprive plaintiff of possession and use of an apartment. However, a cause of action in tort for conspiracy is not recognized in this State (see, Salerno v Pandick, Inc., 144 AD2d 307, 308). In any event, plaintiff’s unsubstantiated allegation that a "corrupt agreement” existed between the defendants to deprive him of his property is rebutted by plaintiff’s antecedent actions. He accepted checks from defendant Emanuel for the rent, and later settled his summary eviction proceeding against defendant Emanuel alone.

Finally, plaintiff is precluded from seeking damages for unpaid rent under the doctrine of collateral estoppel (see, Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500) because the question of possession of the apartment and of the amount to be paid for use and occupancy was decided by a Civil Court judgment that incorporated a stipulation of settlement entered into by defendant Emanuel and plaintiff.

Since this action was commenced without a reasonable basis in law or fact, the trial court’s awarding of legal fees to defendants was proper (see, Grosso v Mathew, 164 AD2d 476, lv dismissed 77 NY2d 940, lv denied 78 NY2d 855). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), both entered on September 12, 1991, granting defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and awarding defendants legal fees aggregating $3850, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff alleged that defendants had "conspired together, and willfully and maliciously entered into a scheme” to deprive plaintiff of possession and use of an apartment. However, a cause of action in tort for conspiracy is not recognized in this State (see, Salerno v Pandick, Inc., 144 AD2d 307, 308). In any event, plaintiff’s unsubstantiated allegation that a "corrupt agreement” existed between the defendants to deprive him of his property is rebutted by plaintiff’s antecedent actions. He accepted checks from defendant Emanuel for the rent, and later settled his summary eviction proceeding against defendant Emanuel alone.

Finally, plaintiff is precluded from seeking damages for unpaid rent under the doctrine of collateral estoppel (see, Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500) because the question of possession of the apartment and of the amount to be paid for use and occupancy was decided by a Civil Court judgment that incorporated a stipulation of settlement entered into by defendant Emanuel and plaintiff.

Since this action was commenced without a reasonable basis in law or fact, the trial court’s awarding of legal fees to defendants was proper (see, Grosso v Mathew, 164 AD2d 476, lv dismissed 77 NY2d 940, lv denied 78 NY2d 855). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A.D.2d 556, 592 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haberman-v-emanuel-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack