Mohamed v. Defrin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mohamed v. Defrin

116 A.D.3d 621, 983 N.Y.S.2d 800

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

DecidedApril 24, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.3d 621 (Mohamed v. Defrin) 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

Mohamed v. Defrin, 116 A.D.3d 621, 983 N.Y.S.2d 800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered on or about December 17, 2012, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars plaintiff’s claims to compel the sale of certain parcels of real property or for a money judgment based on an order in a prior litigation, as the issues raised in this action have necessarily been decided in the prior litigation and plaintiff was accorded a full and fair opportunity to contest them (see e.g. Mohamed v Defrin, 45 AD3d 252 [1st Dept 2007], lv dismissed 11 NY3d 783 [2008]; see generally Allied Chem. v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 72 NY2d 271, 276 [1988]). Plaintiff has failed to articulate any legal theory, not already considered and resolved against him, that would allow him recovery here. Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered on or about December 17, 2012, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars plaintiff’s claims to compel the sale of certain parcels of real property or for a money judgment based on an order in a prior litigation, as the issues raised in this action have necessarily been decided in the prior litigation and plaintiff was accorded a full and fair opportunity to contest them (see e.g. Mohamed v Defrin, 45 AD3d 252 [1st Dept 2007], lv dismissed 11 NY3d 783 [2008]; see generally Allied Chem. v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 72 NY2d 271, 276 [1988]). Plaintiff has failed to articulate any legal theory, not already considered and resolved against him, that would allow him recovery here. Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 621, 983 N.Y.S.2d 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mohamed-v-defrin-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack