Magen David of Union Sq. v. 3 W. 16th St., LLC

2019 NY Slip Op 2806
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 11, 2019
Docket8954 600573/08
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 2806 (Magen David of Union Sq. v. 3 W. 16th St., LLC) 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
Magen David of Union Sq. v. 3 W. 16th St., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 2806 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

Magen David of Union Sq. v 3 W. 16th St., LLC (2019 NY Slip Op 02806)
Magen David of Union Sq. v 3 W. 16th St., LLC
2019 NY Slip Op 02806
Decided on April 11, 2019
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on April 11, 2019
Sweeny, J.P., Webber, Gesmer, Singh, JJ.

8954 600573/08

[*1]Magen David of Union Square, et al., Plaintiffs, The Sixteenth Street Synagogue, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

3 West 16th Street, LLC, Defendant-Respondent.


Lambert & Shackman, PLLC, New York (Thomas C. Lambert of counsel), for appellant.

McLaughlin & Stern LLP, New York (Paul H. Levinson of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry R. Ostrager, J.), entered on or about February 22, 2018, which granted defendant's motion to vacate the note of issue and for summary judgment on the third counterclaim for declaratory judgment that defendant is the fee simple owner of the property with the exclusive right of possession, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On one of at least two prior appeals in this action, this Court expressly held that "[a]lthough the prior appeal did not specifically address [the third] counterclaim, the underlying issues were necessarily resolved in that appeal, and that

resolution constitutes the law of the case" (132 AD3d 503, 504 [1st Dept 2015], lv dismissed 28 NY3d 977 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]). This Court further held that "[t]he doctrine of res judicata also bars the Synagogue's claim of an equitable ownership interest in the Building," since the Synagogue's predecessor in interest, in discontinuing a prior action, gave up that claim (id. at 504).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: APRIL 11, 2019

CLERK



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

Related

Magen David of Union Sq. v. 3 W. 16th St., LLC
132 A.D.3d 503 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 NY Slip Op 2806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magen-david-of-union-sq-v-3-w-16th-st-llc-nyappdiv-2019.