Video Artists, Inc. v. Cinerama, Inc.

27 A.D.2d 829, 281 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4579

This text of 27 A.D.2d 829 (Video Artists, Inc. v. Cinerama, 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
Video Artists, Inc. v. Cinerama, Inc., 27 A.D.2d 829, 281 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4579 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Opinion

Order entered July 21, 1966, granting plaintiff's motion to dismiss as invalid the affirmative defense of res judicata unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant, and the motion denied. The amended complaint alleges three causes of action for alleged fraud and deceit and prima facie tort. The amended complaint followed the dismissal of the complaint by order dated April 25, 1966, with leave to “ replead limited to alleged wrongful acts transpiring after December 15, 1964.” The defense is grounded on the judgment entered April 7, 1966 and the satisfaction thereof which were the bases for the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The order of April 25, 1966 determined the insufficiency of the complaint; it did not pass on the validity of the defense in the answer to the amended complaint here involved. (Donato v. American Locomotive Co., 283 App. Div. 410, 413, affd. 306 N. Y. 966.) The record in the prior action terminating in the judgment of April 7, 1966 establishes that issues were resolved relating to the period subsequent to December 15, 1964. The extent, if any, to which plaintiff may be estopped by the prior judgment and proceedings depends on the proof tendered and adduced by the plaintiff to establish the allegations of the amended complaint. (See Sielchen-Schwarz v. American Factors, 265 N. Y. 239, 243, 244.) Concur—Steuer, J. P., Tilzer, Rabin, McNally and Staley, Jr., JJ.

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

Related

Sielcken-Schwarz v. American Factors, Ltd.
192 N.E. 307 (New York Court of Appeals, 1934)
Donato v. American Locomotive Co.
283 A.D. 410 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1954)
Donato v. American Locomotive Co.
120 N.E.2d 227 (New York Court of Appeals, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 A.D.2d 829, 281 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/video-artists-inc-v-cinerama-inc-nyappdiv-1967.