Melnitzky v. Uribe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Melnitzky v. Uribe

18 A.D.3d 328, 794 N.Y.S.2d 647, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5446

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

DecidedMay 19, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 328 (Melnitzky v. Uribe) 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. Uribe, 18 A.D.3d 328, 794 N.Y.S.2d 647, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5446 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered April 8, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for additional discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs claims for breach of contract, fraud and deceptive conduct, stemming from an exclusive agreement to provide conservation and restoration services to the Latin American painting department, were previously dismissed on the merits (Melnitzky v Sotheby Parke Bernet, 300 AD2d 201 [2002], lv denied 100 NY2d 510 [2003]). As such, any claims that were or could have been asserted in the previous action regarding this agreement are barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, even if based on different theories or sought under a different remedy (see Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494 [1984]).

Plaintiffs cross motion would fail for the additional reason that in his papers there was neither any identification of an issue that required discovery nor any demonstration of the likelihood that such evidence existed to support such issue (Sovereign [329]*329Metal Corp. v Ciraco, 210 AD2d 75, 76 [1994]). In any event, given that the work orders go to the issue of damages, plaintiff s request for depositions in this regard would do nothing to change the fact that his claims are barred. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered April 8, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for additional discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs claims for breach of contract, fraud and deceptive conduct, stemming from an exclusive agreement to provide conservation and restoration services to the Latin American painting department, were previously dismissed on the merits (Melnitzky v Sotheby Parke Bernet, 300 AD2d 201 [2002], lv denied 100 NY2d 510 [2003]). As such, any claims that were or could have been asserted in the previous action regarding this agreement are barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, even if based on different theories or sought under a different remedy (see Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494 [1984]).

Plaintiffs cross motion would fail for the additional reason that in his papers there was neither any identification of an issue that required discovery nor any demonstration of the likelihood that such evidence existed to support such issue (Sovereign [329]*329Metal Corp. v Ciraco, 210 AD2d 75, 76 [1994]). In any event, given that the work orders go to the issue of damages, plaintiff s request for depositions in this regard would do nothing to change the fact that his claims are barred. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 328, 794 N.Y.S.2d 647, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melnitzky-v-uribe-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack