Pettus v. Board of Directors, Owners 800 Grand Concourse

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Pettus v. Board of Directors, Owners 800 Grand Concourse

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 22, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 50394(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Pettus v. Board of Directors, Owners 800 Grand Concourse (Pettus v. Board of Directors, Owners 800 Grand Concourse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pettus v. Board of Directors, Owners 800 Grand Concourse, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

James Pettus, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

Board of Directors, Owners 800 Grand Concourse, Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Brenda Rivera, J.), entered November 8, 2018, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the action and enjoined plaintiff from initiating any further litigation without prior approval of the Court.

Per Curiam.

Order (Brenda Rivera, J.), entered November 8, 2018, affirmed, without costs.

This small claims action was properly dismissed on res judicata grounds. The instant action, like the Supreme Court action previously commenced by plaintiff, is based upon the defendant cooperative's determination to issue a credit to monthly maintenance of certain tax abatements, rather than issuing a direct refund by check (see Matter of Pettus v Board of Directors, 155 AD3d 485 [2017]; see also O'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]). That plaintiff now seeks different relief than sought in Supreme Court does not alter this conclusion (see Chapman v Faustin, 150 AD3d 647 [2017]). Under New York's transactional analysis approach to res judicata, "once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy" (Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005], quoting O'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d at 357).

We also reject plaintiff's challenge to that portion of the order on appeal barring him from initiating further litigation in the Civil Court without prior court approval (see Pettus v Board of Directors, appeal numbered 19-061, decided herewith.)

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: March 22, 2019

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

James Pettus, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

Board of Directors, Owners 800 Grand Concourse, Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Brenda Rivera, J.), entered November 8, 2018, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the action and enjoined plaintiff from initiating any further litigation without prior approval of the Court.

Per Curiam.

Order (Brenda Rivera, J.), entered November 8, 2018, affirmed, without costs.

This small claims action was properly dismissed on res judicata grounds. The instant action, like the Supreme Court action previously commenced by plaintiff, is based upon the defendant cooperative's determination to issue a credit to monthly maintenance of certain tax abatements, rather than issuing a direct refund by check (see Matter of Pettus v Board of Directors, 155 AD3d 485 [2017]; see also O'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]). That plaintiff now seeks different relief than sought in Supreme Court does not alter this conclusion (see Chapman v Faustin, 150 AD3d 647 [2017]). Under New York's transactional analysis approach to res judicata, "once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy" (Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005], quoting O'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d at 357).

We also reject plaintiff's challenge to that portion of the order on appeal barring him from initiating further litigation in the Civil Court without prior court approval (see Pettus v Board of Directors, appeal numbered 19-061, decided herewith.)

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: March 22, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pettus v. Board of Directors, Owners 800 Grand Concourse, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pettus-v-board-of-directors-owners-800-grand-concourse-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack