Zimmerman v. Stephenson

2025 NY Slip Op 00734

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: February 6, 2025
• Docket: Index No. 159111/23 Appeal No. 3639 Case No. 2024-00464
• Status: Published

Opinion

Zimmerman v Stephenson (2025 NY Slip Op 00734)

Zimmerman v Stephenson

2025 NY Slip Op 00734

Decided on February 06, 2025

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: February 06, 2025
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Moulton, Mendez, Shulman, Higgitt, JJ.

Index No. 159111/23 Appeal No. 3639 Case No. 2024-00464

[*1]Michael A. Zimmerman, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Elaine Cerata-Davis Stephenson, Defendant-Appellant.

Zeichner Ellman & Krause LLP, New York (Ingrid Tatiana Medina Rodriguez of counsel), for appellant.

Zimmerman Law, P.C., Huntington Station (Michael Zimmerman of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered on or about December 21, 2023, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint for a renewed judgment pursuant to CPLR 5014 and denied defendant's cross-motion to dismiss, deemed appeal from judgment, same court and Justice, entered on or about February 14, 2024, awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $54,835.71, plus interest, and, so considered, the judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of this Court's prior determination in Solomon Holding Corp. v Stephenson (118 AD3d 614 [1st Dept 2014]), defendant's arguments concerning the validity of the underlying judgment are barred by res judicata (see O'Brien v Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]).

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to a renewal judgment under CPLR 5014(1), inter alia, by demonstrating that, to date, only a nominal payment of the underlying debt has been recovered; thus, defendant has not satisfied the judgment (see C.T. Holdings, Ltd. v Schreiber Family Charitable Found., Inc., 154 AD3d 433, 433 [1st Dept 2017]). In opposition, defendant failed to raise an issue of fact.

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: February 6, 2025