IMPERIAL OUTFITTERS TO LARGE MEN, INC. v. Genesco, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

IMPERIAL OUTFITTERS TO LARGE MEN, INC. v. Genesco, Inc.

497 N.E.2d 703, 68 N.Y.2d 732, 506 N.Y.S.2d 336, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 19501

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 10, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 497 N.E.2d 703 (IMPERIAL OUTFITTERS TO LARGE MEN, INC. v. Genesco, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

IMPERIAL OUTFITTERS TO LARGE MEN, INC. v. Genesco, Inc., 497 N.E.2d 703, 68 N.Y.2d 732, 506 N.Y.S.2d 336, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 19501 (N.Y. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (95 AD2d 755). We add that defendant Genesco’s claim that defendant 48-48 Associates, Inc. is collaterally estopped from litigating the proper interpretation of the lease language in this cross claim because of the judicial interpretation previously made in plaintiffs action is without merit since 48-48 Associates did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceedings (see, Schwartz v Public Administrator of County of Bronx, 24 NY2d 65, 72-73; see also, Restatement [Second] of Judgments § 28 [1]).

Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (95 AD2d 755). We add that defendant Genesco’s claim that defendant 48-48 Associates, Inc. is collaterally estopped from litigating the proper interpretation of the lease language in this cross claim because of the judicial interpretation previously made in plaintiffs action is without merit since 48-48 Associates did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceedings (see, Schwartz v Public Administrator of County of Bronx, 24 NY2d 65, 72-73; see also, Restatement [Second] of Judgments § 28 [1]).

Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

497 N.E.2d 703, 68 N.Y.2d 732, 506 N.Y.S.2d 336, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 19501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/imperial-outfitters-to-large-men-inc-v-genesco-inc-ny-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack