Ferrandino v. Cartelli
| Decision Date | 13 December 1960 |
| Citation | 208 N.Y.S.2d 750,12 A.D.2d 604 |
| Parties | Lena FERRANDINO and Betty Milano, doing business as Marbetti, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Frances Lozito CARTELLI, as Executrix of the Last Will and Testament of Carmello Lozito, Deceased, and Frances Lozito Cartelli, individually, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
R. J. Philips, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants.
G. Rover, New York City, for defendant-respondents.
Before BOTEIN, P. J., and BREITEL, VALENTE, McNALLY and STEVENS, JJ.
Order entered on October 2, 1959 and the judgment thereon dismissing the complaint on the ground of another pending action between the parties reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs to plaintiffs-appellants and the motion denied, with $10 costs. In the prior action judgment was entered December 26, 1958 after inquest. In this action on July 23, 1959 defendant-respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the prior action was pending. Rules of Civil Practice, rule 107, subd. 3. In the interim the moving defendant had moved to vacate the judgment in the prior action on the ground that she had not been served with process. No prior action was pending when the order to dismiss this action was made because judgment had been entered in the prior action. The judgment in the first action terminated the action and the pendency of the motion to vacate it did not serve to convert it into a pending action. Porter v. Kingsbury, 77 N.Y. 164, 169. See also, Gentilala v. Fay Taxicabs, Inc., 243 N.Y. 397, 153 N.E. 848. In any event defendant should be estopped from claiming the existence of a prior action, where it has been demonstrated that the prior action, on defendant's objection, was void because of lack of prior service of process. To claim successfully that a prior action is a nullity, and then to assert it bars a subsequent action is a completely inconsistent position. Order filed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Piedra v. Vanover
... ... Proceedings, 59 Harv L Rev 1132; see also, Beck, Estoppel Against Inconsistent Positions in Judicial Proceedings, 9 Brooklyn L Rev 245; Ferrandino v. Cartelli, 12 AD2d 604 [208 N.Y.S.2d 750]. The doctrine rests upon the principle that a litigant 'should not be permitted * * * to lead a court to ... ...
-
Arol Development Corp. v. Goodie Brand Packing Corp.
...into existence. How, then, could a proceeding which never came into existence be a bar to a second proceeding? In Ferrandino v. Cartelli, 12 A.D.2d 604, 208 N.Y.S.2d 750 (1960), the Appellate Division, First Department 'In any event defendant should be estopped from claiming the existence o......
-
Department of Housing Preservation & Development of City of New York v. Koenigsberg
...petitioner here. Each respondent is arguing inconsistently; that posture is prohibited by the courts. Ferrandino v. Cartelli, 12 A.D.2d 604, 208 N.Y.S.2d 750 (1st Dept.1960) "Defendant may not have it both ways. He may not assert that an action has not been properly commenced due to defecti......
-
City of New York v. Wall Street Racquet Club, Inc.
...respondent have been affirmed by the Appellate Division. Those actions are, therefore, no longer pending. (See Ferrandino v. Cartelli, 12 A.D.2d 604, 208 N.Y.S.2d 750). The purpose of CPLR 3211(a)(4) is to prevent possible inconsistent or duplicative results. (Pompea Inc. v. Essayan, 36 A.D......