Veleron Holding, B v. v. Stanley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Veleron Holding, B v. v. Stanley

2017 NY Slip Op 5046, 151 A.D.3d 597, 58 N.Y.S.3d 27

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

DecidedJune 20, 2017

Docket4313 652944/14

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 5046 (Veleron Holding, B v. v. Stanley) 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

Veleron Holding, B v. v. Stanley, 2017 NY Slip Op 5046, 151 A.D.3d 597, 58 N.Y.S.3d 27 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

*598 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered August 4, 2016, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as barred by the doctrine of res judicata, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The transactions upon which plaintiff’s claim of fraud are premised were the subject of prior claims adjudicated in federal court, and thus this action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357-358 [1981]; Elias v Rothschild, 29 AD3d 448 [1st Dept 2006]). Indeed, defendants sought removal of this action to join the federal claim, an action that plaintiff opposed, and the federal court, in remanding this matter back to state court, even warned that the action might be subsequently barred by claim preclusion.

Plaintiffs claim that it did not have sufficient knowledge to raise the cause of action when filing the federal complaint is not persuasive in light of that complaint referencing the very allegations that form the basis of this action. The fact that subsequent discovery revealed emails supporting this claim is irrevelant, since the proper inquiry for res judicata purposes is not whether Veleron had enough evidence to prove its claim, but when it had sufficient knowledge to raise the cause of action (see UBS Sec. LLC v Highland Capital Mgt., L.P., 86 AD3d 469, 476 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Gesmer, JJ.

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

*598 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered August 4, 2016, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as barred by the doctrine of res judicata, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The transactions upon which plaintiff’s claim of fraud are premised were the subject of prior claims adjudicated in federal court, and thus this action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357-358 [1981]; Elias v Rothschild, 29 AD3d 448 [1st Dept 2006]). Indeed, defendants sought removal of this action to join the federal claim, an action that plaintiff opposed, and the federal court, in remanding this matter back to state court, even warned that the action might be subsequently barred by claim preclusion.

Plaintiffs claim that it did not have sufficient knowledge to raise the cause of action when filing the federal complaint is not persuasive in light of that complaint referencing the very allegations that form the basis of this action. The fact that subsequent discovery revealed emails supporting this claim is irrevelant, since the proper inquiry for res judicata purposes is not whether Veleron had enough evidence to prove its claim, but when it had sufficient knowledge to raise the cause of action (see UBS Sec. LLC v Highland Capital Mgt., L.P., 86 AD3d 469, 476 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 5046, 151 A.D.3d 597, 58 N.Y.S.3d 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/veleron-holding-b-v-v-stanley-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack