HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n v. Pantel
| Decision Date | 08 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2018–03547,Index No. 59123/17 |
| Citation | 179 A.D.3d 650,116 N.Y.S.3d 336 |
| Parties | HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., Appellant, v. Marc PANTEL, etc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
179 A.D.3d 650
116 N.Y.S.3d 336
HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., Appellant,
v.
Marc PANTEL, etc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
2018–03547
Index No. 59123/17
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—June 7, 2019
January 8, 2020
Shapiro, DiCaro & Barak, LLC, Rochester, N.Y. (Virginia Grapensteter and Austin Shufelt of counsel), for appellant.
Reich, Reich & Reich, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Nicholas A. Pasalides of counsel), for respondents.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendants Marc Pantel and Carol Pantel pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them is denied.
In 2013, the plaintiff commenced an action (hereinafter the prior action) to foreclose a mortgage securing a consolidated note executed by the defendants Marc Pantel and Carol Pantel (hereinafter together the defendants). The defendants interposed an answer in which they asserted as an affirmative defense that the plaintiff did not have standing. After a trial on the issue of standing, a Court Attorney Referee issued a report in which she concluded that the plaintiff had failed to establish that it had standing. The Supreme Court confirmed the report and entered a judgment dismissing the prior action.
Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced the instant action to foreclose the same mortgage, alleging that it was the owner and holder of the consolidated note and mortgage. Prior to joining issue, the defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, arguing that the instant action was barred by res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. The plaintiff opposed the motion. In an order dated February 26, 2018, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion, and the plaintiff appeals.
Under the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, "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" ( Sciangula v. Montegut , 165 A.D.3d 1188, 1190, 87 N.Y.S.3d 47 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lennon v. 56th & Park(NY) Owner, LLC
...we affirm.II. Collateral Estoppel Collateral estoppel is sometimes referred to as issue preclusion (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Pantel, 179 A.D.3d 650, 651, 116 N.Y.S.3d 336 ; Manko v. Gabay, 175 A.D.3d 484, 486, 106 N.Y.S.3d 130 ; Bruno v. Bank of N.Y., 172 A.D.3d 992, 994, 101 N.Y.S.3d 124......
-
MTGLQ Inv'rs v. Gross
...U.S. Bank N.A. v. Friedman, 175 A.D.3d 1341, 1342, 109 N.Y.S.3d 88 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Pantel, 179 A.D.3d 650, 650-651, 116 N.Y.S.3d 336). The rationale underlying this principle is that a party who has been given a full and fair opportunity to lit......
-
Lennon v. 56th & Park (NY) Owner, LLC
...we affirm. II. Collateral Estoppel Collateral estoppel is sometimes referred to as issue preclusion (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Pantel, 179 A.D.3d 650, 651; Manko v Gabay, 175 A.D.3d 484, 486; Bruno v Bank of N.Y., 172 A.D.3d 992, 994). The doctrine of collateral estoppel "precludes a party ......
-
Lennon v. 56th & Park (NY) Owner, LLC
...we affirm. II. Collateral Estoppel Collateral estoppel is sometimes referred to as issue preclusion (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Pantel, 179 A.D.3d 650, 651; Manko v Gabay, 175 A.D.3d 484, 486; Bruno v Bank of N.Y., 172 A.D.3d 992, 994). The doctrine of collateral estoppel "precludes a party ......