Spina Floor Covering, Inc. v. Kaplan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spina Floor Covering, Inc. v. Kaplan

189 A.D.2d 698, 592 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 444

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 189 A.D.2d 698 (Spina Floor Covering, Inc. v. Kaplan) 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

Spina Floor Covering, Inc. v. Kaplan, 189 A.D.2d 698, 592 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 444 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered March 26, 1992, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The doctrine of res judicata bars this New York County action. Plaintiff’s prior action, which was brought in Nassau County, and which was dismissed with prejudice, was premised on the same transactions and grounds as the instant action. While plaintiff seeks different relief in this action, that does not save the complaint from dismissal (see, O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357). Moreover, while plaintiff added several new defendants to the New York County action, they all are either in privity with the defendants in the Nassau County action or are merely legal counsel to the defendants, and plaintiff cannot therefore avoid the bar of res judicata (Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481).

We have considered all other claims and find them to be of no merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered March 26, 1992, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The doctrine of res judicata bars this New York County action. Plaintiff’s prior action, which was brought in Nassau County, and which was dismissed with prejudice, was premised on the same transactions and grounds as the instant action. While plaintiff seeks different relief in this action, that does not save the complaint from dismissal (see, O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357). Moreover, while plaintiff added several new defendants to the New York County action, they all are either in privity with the defendants in the Nassau County action or are merely legal counsel to the defendants, and plaintiff cannot therefore avoid the bar of res judicata (Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481).

We have considered all other claims and find them to be of no merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A.D.2d 698, 592 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spina-floor-covering-inc-v-kaplan-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack