Hartigan v. Manhattan Embassy Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hartigan v. Manhattan Embassy Co.

306 A.D.2d 135, 760 N.Y.S.2d 318, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6972

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

DecidedJune 17, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 135 (Hartigan v. Manhattan Embassy Co.) 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

Hartigan v. Manhattan Embassy Co., 306 A.D.2d 135, 760 N.Y.S.2d 318, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6972 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered November 25, 2002, which, upon reargument, adhered to a prior order of the same court and Justice granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as barred under the doctrine of res judicata, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Inasmuch as plaintiff’s present claims arise from the same transactions that were the subject of her counterclaims in the [136]*136previously concluded nonpayment proceeding, they are barred under the doctrine of res judicata (see Coleman v Chaibane Props., 188 AD2d 413, 414 [1992], lv dismissed 81 NY2d 1007 [1993]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered November 25, 2002, which, upon reargument, adhered to a prior order of the same court and Justice granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as barred under the doctrine of res judicata, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Inasmuch as plaintiff’s present claims arise from the same transactions that were the subject of her counterclaims in the [136]*136previously concluded nonpayment proceeding, they are barred under the doctrine of res judicata (see Coleman v Chaibane Props., 188 AD2d 413, 414 [1992], lv dismissed 81 NY2d 1007 [1993]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 135, 760 N.Y.S.2d 318, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartigan-v-manhattan-embassy-co-nyappdiv-2003.