Truong v. Litman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Truong v. Litman

93 A.D.3d 566, 940 N.Y.S.2d 487

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

DecidedMarch 22, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 93 A.D.3d 566 (Truong v. Litman) 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

Truong v. Litman, 93 A.D.3d 566, 940 N.Y.S.2d 487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered March 26, 2010, dismissing the complaint, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered July 6, 2009, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of this action was proper as it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see generally O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353 [1981]). The transactions upon which this action is premised were the subject of prior claims brought by and concluded against plaintiffs in both state and federal court (see id. at 357; Elias v Rothschild, 29 AD3d 448 [2006]). Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the claims alleging violations of plaintiffs’ civil rights under 42 USC §§ 1983 and 1985 were decided against plaintiffs on the merits and the breach of contract claim was fully litigated and decided against plaintiffs in Civil Court, New York County. Concur — Tom, J.P, Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered March 26, 2010, dismissing the complaint, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered July 6, 2009, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of this action was proper as it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see generally O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353 [1981]). The transactions upon which this action is premised were the subject of prior claims brought by and concluded against plaintiffs in both state and federal court (see id. at 357; Elias v Rothschild, 29 AD3d 448 [2006]). Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the claims alleging violations of plaintiffs’ civil rights under 42 USC §§ 1983 and 1985 were decided against plaintiffs on the merits and the breach of contract claim was fully litigated and decided against plaintiffs in Civil Court, New York County. Concur — Tom, J.P, Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 A.D.3d 566, 940 N.Y.S.2d 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/truong-v-litman-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack