Harley v. Adler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harley v. Adler

7 A.D.3d 570, 775 N.Y.S.2d 892

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

DecidedMay 10, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 A.D.3d 570 (Harley v. Adler) 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

Harley v. Adler, 7 A.D.3d 570, 775 N.Y.S.2d 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter aha, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated January 21, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[571]*571Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response to the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law that the complaint is barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see Matter of Hodes v Axelrod, 70 NY2d 364 [1987]; Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 485 [1979]). Res judicata precludes a plaintiff from relitigating claims which could have or should have been litigated in prior proceedings (see CRK Contr. of Suffolk v Brown & Assoc., 260 AD2d 530 [1999]; Coliseum Towers Assoc. v County of Nassau, 217 AD2d 387 [1996]).

In light of this determination, the parties’ remaining contentions need not be reached. H. Miller, J.P., Adams, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter aha, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated January 21, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[571]*571Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response to the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law that the complaint is barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see Matter of Hodes v Axelrod, 70 NY2d 364 [1987]; Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 485 [1979]). Res judicata precludes a plaintiff from relitigating claims which could have or should have been litigated in prior proceedings (see CRK Contr. of Suffolk v Brown & Assoc., 260 AD2d 530 [1999]; Coliseum Towers Assoc. v County of Nassau, 217 AD2d 387 [1996]).

In light of this determination, the parties’ remaining contentions need not be reached. H. Miller, J.P., Adams, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 570, 775 N.Y.S.2d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harley-v-adler-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack