Paige v. White Plains Urban Renewal Agency

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paige v. White Plains Urban Renewal Agency

51 A.D.2d 733, 379 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11230

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 733 (Paige v. White Plains Urban Renewal Agency) 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

Paige v. White Plains Urban Renewal Agency, 51 A.D.2d 733, 379 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11230 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alia to declare the rights of the parties with respect to the condemnation of certain property, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 19, 1971, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The doctrine of res judicata bars litigation in the present action of issues which were previously determined or which could have been determined in the prior condemnation proceeding since "the two causes of action have such a measure of identity that a different judgment in the second would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the first” (Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304, 307). Cohalan, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Shapiro and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action inter alia to declare the rights of the parties with respect to the condemnation of certain property, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 19, 1971, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The doctrine of res judicata bars litigation in the present action of issues which were previously determined or which could have been determined in the prior condemnation proceeding since "the two causes of action have such a measure of identity that a different judgment in the second would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the first” (Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304, 307). Cohalan, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Shapiro and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 733, 379 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paige-v-white-plains-urban-renewal-agency-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack