Rosendale v. Citibank, N. A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosendale v. Citibank, N. A.

262 A.D.2d 628, 691 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7596

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

DecidedJune 28, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 628 (Rosendale v. Citibank, N. A.) 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

Rosendale v. Citibank, N. A., 262 A.D.2d 628, 691 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7596 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bellantoni, J.), dated January 28, 1998, which, upon the granting of the respective motions of the defendants to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs arguments, res judicata effect is given to default judgments (see, Silverman v Leucadia, Inc., 156 AD2d 442; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3216:26, at 570). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint in its entirety. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bellantoni, J.), dated January 28, 1998, which, upon the granting of the respective motions of the defendants to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs arguments, res judicata effect is given to default judgments (see, Silverman v Leucadia, Inc., 156 AD2d 442; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3216:26, at 570). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint in its entirety. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 628, 691 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosendale-v-citibank-n-a-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack