Molino v. County of Putnam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Molino v. County of Putnam

30 A.D.2d 929, 294 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3264

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 929 (Molino v. County of Putnam) 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

Molino v. County of Putnam, 30 A.D.2d 929, 294 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3264 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County, dated May 20, 1968, which granted respondent’s motion to amend his answer so as to include the defense of res judicata, reversed, on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. In our opinion, the defense of res judicata which respondent seeks to interpose in his amended answer is not available against appellant, who was not a party or in privity with the defendant in the litigation which resulted in the prior judgment (cf. B. R. De Witt, Inc. v. Hall, 19 N Y 2d 141; Cummings v. Dresher, 18 N Y 2d 105, 107-108; Brooks v. Horning, 27 A D 2d 874). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County, dated May 20, 1968, which granted respondent’s motion to amend his answer so as to include the defense of res judicata, reversed, on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. In our opinion, the defense of res judicata which respondent seeks to interpose in his amended answer is not available against appellant, who was not a party or in privity with the defendant in the litigation which resulted in the prior judgment (cf. B. R. De Witt, Inc. v. Hall, 19 N Y 2d 141; Cummings v. Dresher, 18 N Y 2d 105, 107-108; Brooks v. Horning, 27 A D 2d 874). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 929, 294 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/molino-v-county-of-putnam-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack