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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

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

DecidedMay 11, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 183 (J.H. Impex Enterprises, Inc. v. Bulova 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

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).

Pincite

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

—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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 183, 690 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jh-impex-enterprises-inc-v-bulova-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack