Douglas Elliman, LLC v. Bergere
Citation | 98 A.D.3d 642,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06009,949 N.Y.S.2d 766 |
Parties | DOUGLAS ELLIMAN, LLC, et al., appellants, v. Jane BERGERE, respondent. |
Decision Date | 22 August 2012 |
Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
98 A.D.3d 642
949 N.Y.S.2d 766
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06009
DOUGLAS ELLIMAN, LLC, et al., appellants,
v.
Jane BERGERE, respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug. 22, 2012.
Morris Duffy Alonso & Faley, New York, N.Y. (Barry M. Viuker and Iryna S. Krauchanka of counsel), for appellants.
Borenstein, McConnell & Calpin, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Abraham Borenstein and Alec R. Borenstein of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RANDALL T. ENG, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
[98 A.D.3d 642]In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), dated July 6, 2011, as granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the second amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) based on the doctrine of res judicata, and denied their cross motion for leave to amend their second amended complaint.
[949 N.Y.S.2d 767]
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiffs' second amended complaint should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) based on the doctrine of res judicata. “Under [98 A.D.3d 643]the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding” ( Abraham v. Hermitage Ins. Co., 47 A.D.3d 855, 855, 851 N.Y.S.2d 608;see Pondview Corp. v. Blatt, 95 A.D.3d 980, 980, 943 N.Y.S.2d 754;Matter of ADC Contr. & Constr., Inc. v. Town of Southampton, 50 A.D.3d 1025, 1026, 855 N.Y.S.2d 679;see also Matter of Hunter, 4 N.Y.3d 260, 269, 794 N.Y.S.2d 286, 827 N.E.2d 269;Union St. Tower, LLC v. Richmond, 84 A.D.3d 784, 785, 922 N.Y.S.2d 503). Res judicata thus “ ‘operates to preclude the renewal of issues actually litigated and resolved in a prior proceeding as well as claims for different relief which arise out of the same factual grouping or transaction and which should have or could have been resolved in the prior proceeding’ ” ( Union St. Tower, LLC v. Richmond, 84 A.D.3d at 785, 922 N.Y.S.2d 503, quoting Luscher v. Arrua, 21 A.D.3d 1005, 1006–1007, 801 N.Y.S.2d 379 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). In determining “what ‘factual grouping’...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ellison v. Chartis Claims, Inc.
...quoting Ortega v. Bisogno & Meyerson, 2 A.D.3d 607, 609, 769 N.Y.S.2d 279 [2d Dept 2003] ; see also Douglas Elliman, LLC v. Bergere, 98 A.D.3d 642, 643, 949 N.Y.S.2d 766 [2d Dept 2012] ; Tarek Youssef Hassan Saleh v. 5th Ave. Kings Fruit & Vegetables Corp., 92 A.D.3d 749, 750, 939 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
Tomassetti v. Falco, Index no. 508599/14
...as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding.' " (Douglas Elliman, LLC v. Bergere, 98 A.D.3d 642, 642-643, 949 N.Y.S.2d 766, quoting Abraham v. Hermitage Ins. Co., 47 A.D.3d 855, 855, 851 N.Y.S.2d 608). (Pedote v. STP Associates, LLC, 124 A.D......
-
NRO Bos. LLC v. Yellowstone Capital LLC
...insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit." Douglas Elliman, LLC v. Bergere , 98 A.D.3d 642, 949 N.Y.S.2d 766 [2d Dept. 2012] [internal citations and quotations omitted]. It is within the Court's "broad discretion" whether to grant ......
-
Haberman v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach
...96, 843 N.E.2d 723;Smith v. Russell Sage Coll., 54 N.Y.2d 185, 192–193, 445 N.Y.S.2d 68, 429 N.E.2d 746;Douglas Elliman, LLC v. Bergere, 98 A.D.3d 642, 643, 949 N.Y.S.2d 766;Union St. Tower, LLC v. Richmond, 84 A.D.3d 784, 785, 922 N.Y.S.2d 503). [990 N.Y.S.2d 248] Here, the proposed counte......