Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/J.H. Impex Enterprises, Inc. v. Bulova Corp.

J.H. Impex Enterprises, Inc. v. Bulova Corp.

261 A.D.2d 183, 690 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5277
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 11, 1999·Published

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered January 29, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues they would raise in this action in the prior, and now concluded, Civil Court proceeding, in which the very same issues were determined against a party with whom they were in privity. This being the case, the instant litigation is precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel (see, Corto v Lefrak, 203 AD2d 94, 95, lv dismissed 86 NY2d 774; see also, D’Arata v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 NY2d 659, 664-665; Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 486). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

J.H. Impex Enterprises, Inc. v. Bulova Corp., 261 A.D.2d 183, 690 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5277 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

261 A.D.2d 183 (J.H. Impex Enterprises, Inc. v. Bulova Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v. Lopez
386 N.E.2d 1328 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)
D'Arata v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance
564 N.E.2d 634 (New York Court of Appeals, 1990)
Corto v. Lefrak
203 A.D.2d 94 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)