Yip v. Ip

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yip v. Ip

229 A.D.2d 979, 646 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9025

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 229 A.D.2d 979 (Yip v. Ip) 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

Yip v. Ip, 229 A.D.2d 979, 646 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9025 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in vacating the default judgment taken by plaintiff against defendants (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [3]; Oppenheimer v Westcott, 47 NY2d 595, 603-604; Tortorello v Tortorello, 161 AD2d 633, 634). Plaintiff withheld information from the court regarding prior and pending litigation, in which he asserted substantially the same claims against defendants, and misrepresented to the court that the allegations of his complaint in this action are not substantially controverted. We further conclude that the court properly dismissed the first and second causes of action as barred by res judicata. Those causes of action are virtually identical to the two causes of action that were dismissed in another lawsuit brought by plaintiff in 1984 against defendants (see, People v Trans World Airlines, 171 AD2d 76). Finally, the court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing plaintiffs remaining cause of action because it is the same as that asserted in the pending 1984 action (see, CPLR 3211 (a) (4); Whitney v Whitney, 57 NY2d 731, 732; Maier-Schule GMC v General Motors Corp., 210 AD2d 963). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J.—Vacate Default Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in vacating the default judgment taken by plaintiff against defendants (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [3]; Oppenheimer v Westcott, 47 NY2d 595, 603-604; Tortorello v Tortorello, 161 AD2d 633, 634). Plaintiff withheld information from the court regarding prior and pending litigation, in which he asserted substantially the same claims against defendants, and misrepresented to the court that the allegations of his complaint in this action are not substantially controverted. We further conclude that the court properly dismissed the first and second causes of action as barred by res judicata. Those causes of action are virtually identical to the two causes of action that were dismissed in another lawsuit brought by plaintiff in 1984 against defendants (see, People v Trans World Airlines, 171 AD2d 76). Finally, the court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing plaintiffs remaining cause of action because it is the same as that asserted in the pending 1984 action (see, CPLR 3211 (a) (4); Whitney v Whitney, 57 NY2d 731, 732; Maier-Schule GMC v General Motors Corp., 210 AD2d 963). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J.—Vacate Default Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 A.D.2d 979, 646 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yip-v-ip-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack