Weissman v. Friend

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weissman v. Friend

29 A.D.2d 599, 285 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2736

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 599 (Weissman v. Friend) 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

Weissman v. Friend, 29 A.D.2d 599, 285 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2736 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

—- Reynolds, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Sullivan County, denying appellants’ motion to dismiss the respondent’s complaint. Appellants assert that the present action is barred by res judicata (CPLR 3211, subd, [a], par. 5). It is clear, however, as -Special Term properly noted that the present action for reformation of certain shareholders’ agreements, certificates of incorporations and by-laws on the grounds of mutual mistake, mistake of the scrivener or mistake of the respondent and fraud of the appellants is a different cause of action from that previously asserted in which respondent sought to assert certain rights pursuant to such documents as then constituted. Accordingly, the prior judgment is not a bar to the present action (CPLR 3002, subd. [d]; e.g., Smith v. Kirkpatrick, 305 N. Y. 66; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 3002.09; vol. 5, par. 5011.14). Order affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.

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

—- Reynolds, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Sullivan County, denying appellants’ motion to dismiss the respondent’s complaint. Appellants assert that the present action is barred by res judicata (CPLR 3211, subd, [a], par. 5). It is clear, however, as -Special Term properly noted that the present action for reformation of certain shareholders’ agreements, certificates of incorporations and by-laws on the grounds of mutual mistake, mistake of the scrivener or mistake of the respondent and fraud of the appellants is a different cause of action from that previously asserted in which respondent sought to assert certain rights pursuant to such documents as then constituted. Accordingly, the prior judgment is not a bar to the present action (CPLR 3002, subd. [d]; e.g., Smith v. Kirkpatrick, 305 N. Y. 66; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 3002.09; vol. 5, par. 5011.14). Order affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 599, 285 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weissman-v-friend-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack