Toriola v. Kahen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Toriola v. Kahen

13 A.D.3d 438, 785 N.Y.S.2d 709, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15229

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.3d 438 (Toriola v. Kahen) 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

Toriola v. Kahen, 13 A.D.3d 438, 785 N.Y.S.2d 709, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15229 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to vacate a judgment of possession of the Civil Court, Queens County, entered March 29, 2001, in a proceeding entitled Matter of Kahen v Woutersz, filed under Index No. 57859/01, the plaintiff appeals from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated January 2, 2003, as denied her motion to vacate the judgment of possession, and (2) an order of the same court dated February 20, 2003, which denied her motion for leave to amend the summons and complaint to add a defendant, and, sua sponte, directed that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, so much of the notice of appeal as purports to appeal from that portion of the order dated February 20, 2003, as, sua sponte, directed that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice is treated as an application for leave to appeal and leave to appeal is granted; and it is further,

[439]*439Ordered that the order dated January 2, 2003, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated February 20, 2003, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion to vacate the judgment of possession of the Civil Court, and in the second order appealed from, properly directed that the action be dismissed. The merits of the motion and the action were necessarily determined by the Appellate Term in a decision dated November 20, 2002 (Matter of Kahen v Woutersz, Index No. 1165/01), and thus are barred by the principles of res judicata (see Gramatan Home Inv. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 485 [1979]; cf. Matter of New York Site Dev. Corp. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 217 AD2d 699, 700 [1995]).

In view of the foregoing, the plaintiffs remaining contention is academic. Smith, J.E, Crane, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to vacate a judgment of possession of the Civil Court, Queens County, entered March 29, 2001, in a proceeding entitled Matter of Kahen v Woutersz, filed under Index No. 57859/01, the plaintiff appeals from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated January 2, 2003, as denied her motion to vacate the judgment of possession, and (2) an order of the same court dated February 20, 2003, which denied her motion for leave to amend the summons and complaint to add a defendant, and, sua sponte, directed that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, so much of the notice of appeal as purports to appeal from that portion of the order dated February 20, 2003, as, sua sponte, directed that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice is treated as an application for leave to appeal and leave to appeal is granted; and it is further,

[439]*439Ordered that the order dated January 2, 2003, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated February 20, 2003, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion to vacate the judgment of possession of the Civil Court, and in the second order appealed from, properly directed that the action be dismissed. The merits of the motion and the action were necessarily determined by the Appellate Term in a decision dated November 20, 2002 (Matter of Kahen v Woutersz, Index No. 1165/01), and thus are barred by the principles of res judicata (see Gramatan Home Inv. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 485 [1979]; cf. Matter of New York Site Dev. Corp. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 217 AD2d 699, 700 [1995]).

In view of the foregoing, the plaintiffs remaining contention is academic. Smith, J.E, Crane, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 438, 785 N.Y.S.2d 709, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toriola-v-kahen-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack