Israel v. Wood Dolson Co.
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | CONWAY; DYE |
| Citation | 134 N.E.2d 97,1 N.Y.2d 116,151 N.Y.S.2d 1 |
| Decision Date | 19 April 1956 |
| Parties | , 134 N.E.2d 97 Samuel A. ISRAEL, Appellant, v. WOOD DOLSON COMPANY, Inc., Defendant, and Alexander Gross, Respondent. |
Page 1
v.
WOOD DOLSON COMPANY, Inc., Defendant, and Alexander Gross, Respondent.
Page 2
George J. Rudnick, Brooklyn, for appellant.
[134 N.E.2d 98] [1 N.Y.2d 117] Sidney Roffman, New York City, for respondent.
CONWAY, Chief Judge.
In December, 1950, the appellant, Samuel A. Israel, commenced an action against Wood Dolson Company and the respondent Alexander Gross. The complaint contained two causes of action.
The first cause of action, which was addressed to Wood Dolson, was based upon the alleged breach of a written contract under which Israel was to be entitled to a commission in the event that any future buyer, introduced by Israel to Wood Dolson, purchased certain premises described in the agreement. Israel alleged that he introduced Gross to Wood Dolson; that Wood Dolson effected a sale of the property to Gross or his nominees; that he, Israel, was entitled to the commission agreed upon and that the failure of Wood Dolson to pay the commission constituted a breach of the contract.
The second cause of action, addressed to Gross, alleged that Gross, having knowledge of the agreement between Israel and Wood Dolson,
Page 3
induced Wood Dolson to commit the breach of contract alleged in the first cause of action.At the opening of trial Israel moved to sever the two causes of action and to have them tried separately. The motion was granted and the trial proceeded against Wood Dolson alone on the first cause of action based solely upon the breach of contract. The jury found for the plaintiff, but the Trial Justice dismissed the complaint on the ground that the testimony showed that plaintiff Israel did not introduce Gross to the transaction, but that defendant Wood Dolson had negotiated with Gross before the plaintiff first discussed the transaction with Gross. No appeal was taken from that determination.
[1 N.Y.2d 118] Thereupon, Gross amended his answer to plead the affirmative defense of res judicata, following which he moved for summary judgment upon the ground that he, Gross, could not be found to here induced Wood Dolson to breach a contract with Israel when a court of competent jurisdiction had adjudicated the fact that no breach of contract had occurred between Israel and Wood Dolson.
Special Term denied the motion for summary judgment upon the theory that a prior judgment generally concludes only the parties or their privies; that under the doctrine of res judicata the estoppel of the judgment must be mutual; that such mutuality was lacking here and that the defendant had not brought himself within any of the recognized exceptions to the rule requiring mutuality of estoppel.
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed, holding that the exceptions to the rule of mutuality should be as broad as the requirements of justice and practical necessity and that it would be entirely incongruous to allow Israel a second chance to prove a breach of contract which he failed to establish after full opportunity on the trial of his action against Wood Dolson.
The sole issue before us, therefore, is whether the dismissal of Israel's complaint against Wood Dolson, upon the ground of his failure to prove a breach of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baumgardner v. Bimbo Food Bakeries Distribution, Inc., Case No. 5:09-CV-1613.
...in establishing the elements of tortious interference with contract under New York law. Indeed, Kronos cites Israel v. Wood Dolson Co., 1 N.Y.2d 116, 151 N.Y.S.2d 1, 134 N.E.2d 97 (1956), as authority for the elements of the test, and Israel clearly requires a third party breach. Id. at 120......
-
Don King Productions, Inc. v. Douglas, No. 90 Civ. 1203 (RWS).
...induce its breach; (iii) the agreement was consequently breached; and (iv) damage resulted from the breach. See Israel v. Wood Dolson Co., 1 N.Y.2d 116, 120, 151 N.Y.S.2d 1, 4, 134 N.E.2d 97, 99 (1956); Kaminski v. United Parcel Service, 120 A.D.2d 409, 501 N.Y.S.2d 871, 873 (1st Dep't 1986......
-
Wandering Dago Inc. v. N.Y. State Office of Gen. Servs., No. 1:13–cv–1053 (MAD/RFT).
...NBT Bancorp v. Fleet/Norstar Fin. Group, 87 N.Y.2d 614, 621, 641 N.Y.S.2d 581, 664 N.E.2d 492 (1996) (citing Israel v. Wood Dolson Co., 1 N.Y.2d 116, 119, 151 N.Y.S.2d 1, 134 N.E.2d 97 (1956)). “It is clear, however, that a tortious interference with contract claim may not be premised on a ......
-
Optivision, Inc. v. Syracuse Shopping Ctr. Assoc., No. 79-CV-33.
...of the contract; the defendant intentionally procures the breach of that contract; and damages are suffered. Israel v. Wood Dolson Co., 1 N.Y.2d 116, 120, 151 N.Y.S.2d 1, 5, 134 N.E.2d 97, 99 (1956); Bryce v. Wilde, 39 A.D.2d 291, 333 N.Y.S.2d 614, 616 (3d Dept.), aff'd, 31 N.Y.2d 882, 340 ......
-
Baumgardner v. Bimbo Food Bakeries Distribution, Inc., Case No. 5:09-CV-1613.
...in establishing the elements of tortious interference with contract under New York law. Indeed, Kronos cites Israel v. Wood Dolson Co., 1 N.Y.2d 116, 151 N.Y.S.2d 1, 134 N.E.2d 97 (1956), as authority for the elements of the test, and Israel clearly requires a third party breach. Id. at 120......
-
Don King Productions, Inc. v. Douglas, No. 90 Civ. 1203 (RWS).
...induce its breach; (iii) the agreement was consequently breached; and (iv) damage resulted from the breach. See Israel v. Wood Dolson Co., 1 N.Y.2d 116, 120, 151 N.Y.S.2d 1, 4, 134 N.E.2d 97, 99 (1956); Kaminski v. United Parcel Service, 120 A.D.2d 409, 501 N.Y.S.2d 871, 873 (1st Dep't 1986......
-
Wandering Dago Inc. v. N.Y. State Office of Gen. Servs., No. 1:13–cv–1053 (MAD/RFT).
...NBT Bancorp v. Fleet/Norstar Fin. Group, 87 N.Y.2d 614, 621, 641 N.Y.S.2d 581, 664 N.E.2d 492 (1996) (citing Israel v. Wood Dolson Co., 1 N.Y.2d 116, 119, 151 N.Y.S.2d 1, 134 N.E.2d 97 (1956)). “It is clear, however, that a tortious interference with contract claim may not be premised on a ......
-
Optivision, Inc. v. Syracuse Shopping Ctr. Assoc., No. 79-CV-33.
...of the contract; the defendant intentionally procures the breach of that contract; and damages are suffered. Israel v. Wood Dolson Co., 1 N.Y.2d 116, 120, 151 N.Y.S.2d 1, 5, 134 N.E.2d 97, 99 (1956); Bryce v. Wilde, 39 A.D.2d 291, 333 N.Y.S.2d 614, 616 (3d Dept.), aff'd, 31 N.Y.2d 882, 340 ......
-
Motions For Reargument In The Court Of Appeals
...The law recognizes that "it is to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation." Israel v. Wood Dolson Co., 1 N.Y.2d 116, 118 (1956). This principle pervades the judicial attitude toward motions for reargument, which were aptly described almost 70 years ago in Cohen &......
-
Motions For Reargument In The Court Of Appeals
...The law recognizes that "it is to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation." Israel v. Wood Dolson Co., 1 N.Y.2d 116, 118 (1956). This principle pervades the judicial attitude toward motions for reargument, which were aptly described almost 70 years ago in Cohen &......