Remeeder Housing Development Fund Co. v. Wallace

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Remeeder Housing Development Fund Co. v. Wallace

222 A.D.2d 426, 635 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12573

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 426 (Remeeder Housing Development Fund Co. v. Wallace) 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

Remeeder Housing Development Fund Co. v. Wallace, 222 A.D.2d 426, 635 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for an accounting, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated December 9, 1993, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s arguments, both of the lawsuits which it commenced against the defendant arose from the same series of transactions between the parties and both sought the same relief. Indeed, the complaints in both actions were virtually identical. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the instant action based upon the doctrine of res judicata once it became aware that the prior action had been dismissed with prejudice. "[0]nce 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” (O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357; see also, Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185; Couri v Westchester Country Club, 186 AD2d 715).

We have considered the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for an accounting, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated December 9, 1993, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s arguments, both of the lawsuits which it commenced against the defendant arose from the same series of transactions between the parties and both sought the same relief. Indeed, the complaints in both actions were virtually identical. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the instant action based upon the doctrine of res judicata once it became aware that the prior action had been dismissed with prejudice. "[0]nce 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” (O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357; see also, Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185; Couri v Westchester Country Club, 186 AD2d 715).

We have considered the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 426, 635 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/remeeder-housing-development-fund-co-v-wallace-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack