Pappas v. Cerrone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pappas v. Cerrone

281 A.D.2d 608, 722 N.Y.S.2d 262, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3088

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

DecidedMarch 26, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 608 (Pappas v. Cerrone) 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

Pappas v. Cerrone, 281 A.D.2d 608, 722 N.Y.S.2d 262, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3088 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), entered December 30, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for reargument and renewal of their prior motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata, which was denied by an order of the same court dated September 30, 1999, and, upon reargument and renewal, granted that motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the second complaint. The doctrine of res judicata bars the plaintiffs from filing a second complaint presenting allegations that arise out of the same transactions and occurrences which formed the basis for the first action. A second action is barred even if it is based on different theories or is seeking a different remedy (see, O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353; Syllman v Creditor, 261 AD2d 395). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), entered December 30, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for reargument and renewal of their prior motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata, which was denied by an order of the same court dated September 30, 1999, and, upon reargument and renewal, granted that motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the second complaint. The doctrine of res judicata bars the plaintiffs from filing a second complaint presenting allegations that arise out of the same transactions and occurrences which formed the basis for the first action. A second action is barred even if it is based on different theories or is seeking a different remedy (see, O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353; Syllman v Creditor, 261 AD2d 395). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 608, 722 N.Y.S.2d 262, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pappas-v-cerrone-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack