Weissbrod Gurvey v. Lynch

282 A.D.2d 367, 723 N.Y.S.2d 652, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4151
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 24, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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).

282 A.D.2d 367 (Weissbrod Gurvey v. Lynch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Weissbrod v. Housing Part of the Civil Court of New York
293 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D. New York, 2003)