Mudry v. Giannattasio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mudry v. Giannattasio

8 A.D.3d 455, 779 N.Y.S.2d 111

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

DecidedJune 14, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 455 (Mudry v. Giannattasio) 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

Mudry v. Giannattasio, 8 A.D.3d 455, 779 N.Y.S.2d 111 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to impose a constructive trust on certain real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated August 11, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

[456]*456Because the prior determination upon which the order appealed from was predicated did not indicate an intention to dismiss on the merits, the order cannot be deemed a basis for the application of the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss should have been denied. Florio, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to impose a constructive trust on certain real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated August 11, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

[456]*456Because the prior determination upon which the order appealed from was predicated did not indicate an intention to dismiss on the merits, the order cannot be deemed a basis for the application of the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss should have been denied. Florio, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 455, 779 N.Y.S.2d 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mudry-v-giannattasio-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack