Lawless v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lawless v. State

249 A.D.2d 173, 672 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4439

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

DecidedApril 23, 1998

DocketClaim No. 92155

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 173 (Lawless v. State) 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

Lawless v. State, 249 A.D.2d 173, 672 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4439 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Court of Claims (Louis Benza, J.), entered on or about November 15, 1996, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by claimant’s brief, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing claimant’s cause of action for breach of contract as barred by collateral estoppel, and denied claimant’s cross motion for disclosure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no merit to claimant’s argument that Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction over his earlier action that also sought damages for breach of contract, since the demand for damages in that action was dependent upon and incidental to the resolution of an underlying claim for declaratory relief (see, Shields v Katz, 143 AD2d 743, 745). Once Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is accepted, and as the contract on which claimant sued on therein is the same as that sued on herein, the preclusive effect of Supreme Court’s judgment is clear. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Court of Claims (Louis Benza, J.), entered on or about November 15, 1996, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by claimant’s brief, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing claimant’s cause of action for breach of contract as barred by collateral estoppel, and denied claimant’s cross motion for disclosure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no merit to claimant’s argument that Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction over his earlier action that also sought damages for breach of contract, since the demand for damages in that action was dependent upon and incidental to the resolution of an underlying claim for declaratory relief (see, Shields v Katz, 143 AD2d 743, 745). Once Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is accepted, and as the contract on which claimant sued on therein is the same as that sued on herein, the preclusive effect of Supreme Court’s judgment is clear. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 173, 672 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawless-v-state-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack