Pullman Group, LLC v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pullman Group, LLC v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

297 A.D.2d 578, 747 N.Y.2d 170, 747 N.Y.S.2d 170, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8752

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 578 (Pullman Group, LLC v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America) 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

Pullman Group, LLC v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 297 A.D.2d 578, 747 N.Y.2d 170, 747 N.Y.S.2d 170, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Since a dismissal premised on lack of standing is not a dismissal on the merits for res judicata purposes, plaintiff is not precluded from reasserting the same claims based on newly conferred rights which cure the prior lack of capacity (see Alco Gravure v Knapp Found., 64 NY2d 458, 465; Tong v Hang Seng Bank, 210 AD2d 99, 100). The dismissal of plaintiffs prior action, based on the determination that plaintiff neither owned the intellectual property at issue nor had an express assignment of the rights thereto (see Pullman Group v Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 288 AD2d 2), is therefore not a bar to the instant action.

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

Since a dismissal premised on lack of standing is not a dismissal on the merits for res judicata purposes, plaintiff is not precluded from reasserting the same claims based on newly conferred rights which cure the prior lack of capacity (see Alco Gravure v Knapp Found., 64 NY2d 458, 465; Tong v Hang Seng Bank, 210 AD2d 99, 100). The dismissal of plaintiffs prior action, based on the determination that plaintiff neither owned the intellectual property at issue nor had an express assignment of the rights thereto (see Pullman Group v Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 288 AD2d 2), is therefore not a bar to the instant action.

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 578, 747 N.Y.2d 170, 747 N.Y.S.2d 170, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pullman-group-llc-v-prudential-insurance-co-of-america-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack