Lieblich v. Nahzi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lieblich v. Nahzi

99 A.D.3d 639, 952 N.Y.2d 883

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

DecidedOctober 25, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.3d 639 (Lieblich v. Nahzi) 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

Lieblich v. Nahzi, 99 A.D.3d 639, 952 N.Y.2d 883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiffs’ present action, which seeks to recover money for expenses they claimed should have been deducted from the amount awarded to defendant in a prior action (Nahzi v Lieblich, [640]*64069 AD3d 427 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 703 [2010]), is barred by res judicata (see Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347 [1999]) and collateral estoppel (see Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 485 [1979]). In the prior litigation, plaintiffs had the opportunity to raise the issue of additional expenses that they allege should have been deducted from defendant’s award of 25% of the proceeds from the sale of property owned by defendant corporation. The individual plaintiffs, who are shareholders of the corporate defendant, failed either to raise this issue or to do so in a procedurally proper manner.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Renwick, Richter and Román, JJ.

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

Plaintiffs’ present action, which seeks to recover money for expenses they claimed should have been deducted from the amount awarded to defendant in a prior action (Nahzi v Lieblich, [640]*64069 AD3d 427 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 703 [2010]), is barred by res judicata (see Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347 [1999]) and collateral estoppel (see Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 485 [1979]). In the prior litigation, plaintiffs had the opportunity to raise the issue of additional expenses that they allege should have been deducted from defendant’s award of 25% of the proceeds from the sale of property owned by defendant corporation. The individual plaintiffs, who are shareholders of the corporate defendant, failed either to raise this issue or to do so in a procedurally proper manner.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Renwick, Richter and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 639, 952 N.Y.2d 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lieblich-v-nahzi-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack