Osborne v. Rossrock Fund II, L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Osborne v. Rossrock Fund II, L.P.

82 A.D.3d 727, 917 N.Y.2d 898

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

DecidedMarch 1, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 727 (Osborne v. Rossrock Fund II, L.P.) 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

Osborne v. Rossrock Fund II, L.P., 82 A.D.3d 727, 917 N.Y.2d 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties or those in privity with them of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either

[728]*728was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding” (Goldstein v Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 32 AD3d 821, 821 [2006]; see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]). Here, the claims of the plaintiff George R Osborne (hereinafter the appellant) arise out of the same transaction as those raised in a prior foreclosure action, and could have been raised in that prior action. Since the defendant mortgagee was awarded summary-judgment on the complaint and dismissing, inter alia, the appellant mortgagor’s counterclaim in the foreclosure action (see Rossrock Fund II, L.P. v Osborne, 82 AD3d 737 [2011] [decided herewith]), the doctrine of res judicata bars this action (see Cypress Hills Cemetery v City of New York, 67 AD3d 853, 854 [2009]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5).

In light of our determination, we need not address the appellant’s remaining contentions. Skelos, J.P, Florio, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties or those in privity with them of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either

[728]*728was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding” (Goldstein v Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 32 AD3d 821, 821 [2006]; see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]). Here, the claims of the plaintiff George R Osborne (hereinafter the appellant) arise out of the same transaction as those raised in a prior foreclosure action, and could have been raised in that prior action. Since the defendant mortgagee was awarded summary-judgment on the complaint and dismissing, inter alia, the appellant mortgagor’s counterclaim in the foreclosure action (see Rossrock Fund II, L.P. v Osborne, 82 AD3d 737 [2011] [decided herewith]), the doctrine of res judicata bars this action (see Cypress Hills Cemetery v City of New York, 67 AD3d 853, 854 [2009]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5).

In light of our determination, we need not address the appellant’s remaining contentions. Skelos, J.P, Florio, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 727, 917 N.Y.2d 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osborne-v-rossrock-fund-ii-lp-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack