Albanez v. Charles
| Decision Date | 02 December 2015 |
| Parties | Carlos ALBANEZ, et al., appellants, v. Hans CHARLES, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
134 A.D.3d 657
20 N.Y.S.3d 567
Carlos ALBANEZ, et al., appellants,
v.
Hans CHARLES, et al., respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec. 2, 2015.
Harmon, Linder & Rogowsky (Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff, N.Y., of counsel), for appellants.
Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley, Garden City, N.Y. (Donald S. Neumann, Jr., of counsel), for respondent Alexander Barnych.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SHERI S. ROMAN, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jaeger, J.), entered August 19, 2014, as granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Alexander Barnych which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, and denied, as academic, their motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In granting that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Alexander Barnych which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, and denying, as academic, the appellants' motion to restore the action to the trial calendar, the Supreme Court determined that this action was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. We affirm the order insofar as appealed from, albeit on a ground different from that relied upon by the Supreme Court, namely, that the doctrine of res judicata bars the appellants from maintaining this action.
"[R]es judicata, or claim preclusion, bars successive litigation
based upon the same transaction or series of connected transactions if: (i) there is a judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, and (ii) the party against whom the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rojas v. Romanoff
...benefits action decided on default.Finally, we recognize that the Second Department has ruled otherwise (see Albanez v. Charles, 134 A.D.3d 657, 20 N.Y.S.3d 567 [2d Dept. 2015] ). We are not bound by the decision of the Second Department (see Mountain View Coach Lines v. Storms , 102 A.D.2d......
-
Tromba v. E. Fed. Sav. Bank, FSB
...claim to the subject property on the ground that the action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see Albanez v. Charles, 134 A.D.3d 657, 658, 20 N.Y.S.3d 567 ; Richter v. Sportsmans 48 N.Y.S.3d 503Props., Inc., 82 A.D.3d at 734, 918 N.Y.S.2d 511 ; Lazides v. P & G Enters., 58 A.D.3d ......
-
Eaddy v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 2016–09406
...barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see Tromba v. Eastern Fed. Sav. Bank, FSB, 148 A.D.3d 753, 48 N.Y.S.3d 501 ; Albanez v. Charles, 134 A.D.3d 657, 658, 20 N.Y.S.3d 567 ; Richter v. Sportsmans Props., Inc., 82 A.D.3d at 734, 918 N.Y.S.2d 511 ; Lazides v. P & G Enters., 58 A.D.3d 607, 6......
-
Rely-On-Us, Inc. v. Torres
...been raised in the prior action" ( Tromba v. Eastern Fed. Sav. Bank, FSB, 148 A.D.3d 753, 754, 48 N.Y.S.3d 501 ; see Albanez v. Charles, 134 A.D.3d 657, 658, 20 N.Y.S.3d 567 ; 83–17 Broadway Corp. v. Debcon Fin. Servs., Inc., 39 A.D.3d 583, 585, 835 N.Y.S.2d 602 ; Martins v. Wood, 251 A.D.2......