Magazines Unlimited v. Brody

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Magazines Unlimited v. Brody

28 A.D.3d 320, 812 N.Y.S.2d 353

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

DecidedApril 18, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.D.3d 320 (Magazines Unlimited v. Brody) 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

Magazines Unlimited v. Brody, 28 A.D.3d 320, 812 N.Y.S.2d 353 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered December 16, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the attorney defendants’ motion to dismiss the remaining cause of action in the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants, seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel and res judicata, failed to demonstrate that the issue and claim for conversion raised in the instant action had necessarily been decided in the prior action against plaintiffs, or that plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue (see Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 485 [1979]).

We have reviewed the parties’ requests for sanctions and reject them. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Marlow and Nardelli, McGuire JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered December 16, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the attorney defendants’ motion to dismiss the remaining cause of action in the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants, seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel and res judicata, failed to demonstrate that the issue and claim for conversion raised in the instant action had necessarily been decided in the prior action against plaintiffs, or that plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue (see Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 485 [1979]).

We have reviewed the parties’ requests for sanctions and reject them. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Marlow and Nardelli, McGuire JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 320, 812 N.Y.S.2d 353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magazines-unlimited-v-brody-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack