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

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

DecidedJune 1, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 4 (Melnitzky v. LoPreto) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 4, 777 N.Y.S.2d 304, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melnitzky-v-lopreto-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack