Wolowitz v. Wolowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wolowitz v. Wolowitz

202 A.D.2d 299, 610 N.Y.S.2d 770

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 299 (Wolowitz v. Wolowitz) 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

Wolowitz v. Wolowitz, 202 A.D.2d 299, 610 N.Y.S.2d 770 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Nassau County (M. Hallsted Christ, J.), entered December 20, 1991, which, inter alia, dismissed the action as against defendant-respondent on the ground of res judicata, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that plaintiff’s cause of action in contract and for tortious interference with same alleges the same transactions and occurrences he set forth in both the prior mortgage foreclosure and matrimonial actions, and that he cannot now seek a different result on a different theory (Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304).

We have reviewed the parties’ remaining contentions, including cross-appellant’s request for sanctions, and find that they do not warrant modification of the order on appeal. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Nassau County (M. Hallsted Christ, J.), entered December 20, 1991, which, inter alia, dismissed the action as against defendant-respondent on the ground of res judicata, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that plaintiff’s cause of action in contract and for tortious interference with same alleges the same transactions and occurrences he set forth in both the prior mortgage foreclosure and matrimonial actions, and that he cannot now seek a different result on a different theory (Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304).

We have reviewed the parties’ remaining contentions, including cross-appellant’s request for sanctions, and find that they do not warrant modification of the order on appeal. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 299, 610 N.Y.S.2d 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolowitz-v-wolowitz-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack