Sound Distributing Corp. v. Ponce Acquisition Corp.

179 A.D.2d 469
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 16, 1992·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Defendant’s fifth counterclaim is virtually identical to the anti-trust class action that was the subject of a settlement agreement approved in a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Defendant’s attempt to allege a different set of facts purportedly occurring subsequent to settlement of the Federal action is unsupported by the pleadings or the record. Under New York’s transactional analysis approach to deciding res judicata issues, "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”. (O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357.) Defendant Ponce’s fifth counterclaim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Concur — Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.

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

Sound Distributing Corp. v. Ponce Acquisition Corp., 179 A.D.2d 469 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

179 A.D.2d 469 (Sound Distributing Corp. v. Ponce Acquisition Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wilkes Ex Rel. Mason v. Phoenix Home Life Mutual Ins. Co.
902 A.2d 366 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2006)
Philan Insurance v. Hall
170 Misc. 2d 729 (New York Supreme Court, 1996)