Melnitzky v. LoPreto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Melnitzky v. LoPreto

8 A.D.3d 4, 777 N.Y.S.2d 304, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7386

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 1, 2004·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered April 15, 2003, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s claims against defendant attorney are premised upon the contention that she, as attorney for plaintiffs former wife in the now concluded divorce action brought by her against him, was complicit in an allegedly wrongful inventory of several safe deposit boxes used by plaintiff to store numerous watches, bearer bonds, gold, pens and other valuables. Inasmuch, however, as the issue of the propriety of the challenged inventory was fully litigated in the divorce action, and determined adversely to plaintiff, plaintiff may not in this subsequent action revisit the issue (see Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 485 [1979]). Moreover, plaintiff’s claims for conversion, abuse of process, prima facie tort and violation of Judiciary Law § 487 were time-barred. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered April 15, 2003, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s claims against defendant attorney are premised upon the contention that she, as attorney for plaintiffs former wife in the now concluded divorce action brought by her against him, was complicit in an allegedly wrongful inventory of several safe deposit boxes used by plaintiff to store numerous watches, bearer bonds, gold, pens and other valuables. Inasmuch, however, as the issue of the propriety of the challenged inventory was fully litigated in the divorce action, and determined adversely to plaintiff, plaintiff may not in this subsequent action revisit the issue (see Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 485 [1979]). Moreover, plaintiff’s claims for conversion, abuse of process, prima facie tort and violation of Judiciary Law § 487 were time-barred. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.

Melnitzky v. LoPreto, 8 A.D.3d 4, 777 N.Y.S.2d 304, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7386 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

8 A.D.3d 4 (Melnitzky v. LoPreto) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related