Twumasi v. TJMT Transportation Services, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Twumasi v. TJMT Transportation Services, Inc.

292 A.D.2d 293, 740 N.Y.S.2d 299, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3141

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

DecidedMarch 26, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 292 A.D.2d 293 (Twumasi v. TJMT Transportation Services, Inc.) 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

Twumasi v. TJMT Transportation Services, Inc., 292 A.D.2d 293, 740 N.Y.S.2d 299, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3141 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered on or about October 10, 2000, which granted the motion of the remaining defendant, Robert Medina, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This action was previously dismissed as against defendants TJMT and Paccar Financial Corporation on res judicata grounds (see, 267 AD2d 153), plaintiff having folly litigated the [294]*294causes asserted in this action in a prior federal action. Although plaintiffs causes were concluded against defendant Medina as well when the federal action was dismissed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York with prejudice (see, Fed Rules Civ Pro rule 41 [b]; McLearn v Cowen & Co., 48 NY2d 696), this action was not dismissed as against Medina at the time of its dismissal as against his codefendants since Medina had not at that time appeared in this action. That impediment to Medina’s invocation of the res judicata bar no longer exists, and it is plain that Medina, no less than his codefendants, is entitled to prevail upon that ground. We note that this action would also be dismissible as against Medina upon the ground, raised in Medina’s answer, that the action is time-barred. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered on or about October 10, 2000, which granted the motion of the remaining defendant, Robert Medina, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This action was previously dismissed as against defendants TJMT and Paccar Financial Corporation on res judicata grounds (see, 267 AD2d 153), plaintiff having folly litigated the [294]*294causes asserted in this action in a prior federal action. Although plaintiffs causes were concluded against defendant Medina as well when the federal action was dismissed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York with prejudice (see, Fed Rules Civ Pro rule 41 [b]; McLearn v Cowen & Co., 48 NY2d 696), this action was not dismissed as against Medina at the time of its dismissal as against his codefendants since Medina had not at that time appeared in this action. That impediment to Medina’s invocation of the res judicata bar no longer exists, and it is plain that Medina, no less than his codefendants, is entitled to prevail upon that ground. We note that this action would also be dismissible as against Medina upon the ground, raised in Medina’s answer, that the action is time-barred. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 293, 740 N.Y.S.2d 299, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/twumasi-v-tjmt-transportation-services-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack