Marks v. Beriah

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marks v. Beriah

15 A.D.3d 317, 789 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1941

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 24, 2005·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered April 15, 2004, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and imposed sanctions against plaintiffs in the amount of $500, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs’ present claims, although couched in different terms and forms of relief, arise from the same transaction that was the subject of their counterclaims in the previously concluded Civil Court proceeding, and are thus barred under the doctrine of res judicata (O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353 [1981]; Coleman v Chaibane Props., 188 AD2d 413 [1992], lv denied 84 NY2d 803 [1994]). The court’s imposition of sanctions, characterizing as frivolous plaintiffs’ efforts to undermine the Civil Court’s determination, was a reasonable exercise of discretion (Papa v Burrows, 186 AD2d 375 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 707 [1993]). We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered April 15, 2004, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and imposed sanctions against plaintiffs in the amount of $500, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs’ present claims, although couched in different terms and forms of relief, arise from the same transaction that was the subject of their counterclaims in the previously concluded Civil Court proceeding, and are thus barred under the doctrine of res judicata (O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353 [1981]; Coleman v Chaibane Props., 188 AD2d 413 [1992], lv denied 84 NY2d 803 [1994]). The court’s imposition of sanctions, characterizing as frivolous plaintiffs’ efforts to undermine the Civil Court’s determination, was a reasonable exercise of discretion (Papa v Burrows, 186 AD2d 375 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 707 [1993]). We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Marks v. Beriah, 15 A.D.3d 317, 789 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1941 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

15 A.D.3d 317 (Marks v. Beriah) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related