Ritter v. City of Binghamton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ritter v. City of Binghamton

165 A.D.2d 962, 561 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11446

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 165 A.D.2d 962 (Ritter v. City of Binghamton) 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

Ritter v. City of Binghamton, 165 A.D.2d 962, 561 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11446 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court (Smyk, J.), entered March 31, 1989 in Broome County, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the suit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

The issues raised by plaintiff (usury and equal protection violations) were previously decided against him in a prior case involving the same parties (see, Matter of City of Binghamton [Ritter], 133 AD2d 988, appeal dismissed 70 NY2d 1002). Although the instant case involves different tax years and different dollar amounts than those in the earlier case, the [963]*963record shows no intervening change in defendant’s method of computing penalties on delinquent tax bills. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata (see, Matter of Village of Johnson City v Bolas, 157 AD2d 1009).

Order and judgment affirmed, without costs.

Kane, J. P., Weiss, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court (Smyk, J.), entered March 31, 1989 in Broome County, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the suit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

The issues raised by plaintiff (usury and equal protection violations) were previously decided against him in a prior case involving the same parties (see, Matter of City of Binghamton [Ritter], 133 AD2d 988, appeal dismissed 70 NY2d 1002). Although the instant case involves different tax years and different dollar amounts than those in the earlier case, the [963]*963record shows no intervening change in defendant’s method of computing penalties on delinquent tax bills. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata (see, Matter of Village of Johnson City v Bolas, 157 AD2d 1009).

Order and judgment affirmed, without costs.

Kane, J. P., Weiss, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 A.D.2d 962, 561 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ritter-v-city-of-binghamton-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack