Hypertronics, Inc. v. Digital Equipment Corp.

195 A.D.2d 541, 601 N.Y.S.2d 834, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7404
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 19, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 195 A.D.2d 541 (Hypertronics, Inc. v. Digital Equipment 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
Hypertronics, Inc. v. Digital Equipment Corp., 195 A.D.2d 541, 601 N.Y.S.2d 834, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and unfair competition, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Irving S. Aronin, J.), entered June 21, 1991, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata, is in favor of the defendant and against it.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Summary judgment was granted to the defendant in a prior action brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for fraud and for an accounting. In that action, the court also denied the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to replead in order to replace those two causes of action with causes of action sounding in breach of contract and unfair competition. Upon the plaintiffs appeal, this Court affirmed the judgment (see, Hypertronics, Inc. v Digital Equip. Corp., 159 AD2d 607). The plaintiff then brought the instant action to recover damages for breach of contract and unfair competition.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, we find that the court properly dismissed the present action. Notwithstanding the differences in legal theories it now alleges and the remedies it seeks, the claims in the present action arise out of the same transactions as those alleged in the complaint in the prior action. Thus, under the transactional analysis approach, the instant action is barred on the ground of res judicata (see, O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357; Reape v New York News, 163 AD2d 287). Sullivan, J. P., Eiber, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Sterngass v. County of Rockland
208 A.D.2d 916 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
195 A.D.2d 541, 601 N.Y.S.2d 834, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hypertronics-inc-v-digital-equipment-corp-nyappdiv-1993.