Coleman v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A.

• Decision Date: 27 January 2021
• Docket Number: Index No. 2727/18,2019-01989
• Citation: 190 A.D.3d 931,136 N.Y.S.3d 911 (Mem)
• Parties: Dawson Huber COLEMAN, Jr., appellant, et al., plaintiff, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A., respondent, et al., defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

190 A.D.3d 931
136 N.Y.S.3d 911 (Mem)

Dawson Huber COLEMAN, Jr., appellant, et al., plaintiff,
v.
J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A., respondent, et al., defendants.

2019-01989
Index No. 2727/18

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—November 17, 2020
January 27, 2021

Dawson Huber Coleman, Jr., Brooklyn, NY, appellant pro se.

McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC, New York, NY (Brian P. Scibetta of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, A.P.J., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, ROBERT J. MILLER, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, in effect, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to quiet title to certain real property and to expunge a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Noach Dear, J.), dated January 24, 2019. The order denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint, and, in effect, upon searching the record, awarded summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action, in effect, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to quiet title to certain real property and to expunge a mortgage. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he had an interest in the subject property, and that he was entitled to certain relief as a result of this interest. The plaintiff subsequently moved for summary judgment on the complaint. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court determined that the issues raised in the complaint had "already been adjudicated" in a prior foreclosure action involving the subject property. Accordingly, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint, and, in effect, upon searching the record, awarded summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

"The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action an issue that was raised in a prior action and decided against that party or those in privity" ( Lamberti v. Plaza Equities, LLC, 161 A.D.3d 837, 839, 77 N.Y.S.3d 420 ; see Buechel v. Bain, 97 N.Y.2d 295, 740 N.Y.S.2d 252, 766 N.E.2d 914 ; Ryan v. New York...