Weissbrod Gurvey v. Lynch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weissbrod Gurvey v. Lynch

282 A.D.2d 367, 723 N.Y.S.2d 652, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4151

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

DecidedApril 24, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 367 (Weissbrod Gurvey v. Lynch) 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

Weissbrod Gurvey v. Lynch, 282 A.D.2d 367, 723 N.Y.S.2d 652, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4151 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered on or about June 9, 1999 and April 14, 2000, which, inter alia, granted defendants-respondents’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, and denied plaintiff’s motions to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s claim that the stipulation she signed settling the eviction proceeding against her was fraudulently altered is precluded by the Civil Court’s unappealed order refusing to vacate the stipulation upon the ground that the alteration was “non-substantive, ministerial and de minimus [sic] in nature” (see, Pinnacle Consultants v Leucadia Natl. Corp., 94 NY2d 426, 431-432). The Supreme Court properly applied collateral estoppel to bar relitigation of the causes of action involving the issues necessarily covered by the stipulation. Plaintiff’s other causes of action against defendants-respondents were properly dismissed for lack of merit, and thus leave to amend the complaint was properly denied. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered on or about June 9, 1999 and April 14, 2000, which, inter alia, granted defendants-respondents’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, and denied plaintiff’s motions to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s claim that the stipulation she signed settling the eviction proceeding against her was fraudulently altered is precluded by the Civil Court’s unappealed order refusing to vacate the stipulation upon the ground that the alteration was “non-substantive, ministerial and de minimus [sic] in nature” (see, Pinnacle Consultants v Leucadia Natl. Corp., 94 NY2d 426, 431-432). The Supreme Court properly applied collateral estoppel to bar relitigation of the causes of action involving the issues necessarily covered by the stipulation. Plaintiff’s other causes of action against defendants-respondents were properly dismissed for lack of merit, and thus leave to amend the complaint was properly denied. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 367, 723 N.Y.S.2d 652, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weissbrod-gurvey-v-lynch-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack