Minkoff v. Brenner
| Decision Date | 11 January 1962 |
| Citation | 225 N.Y.S.2d 47,10 N.Y.2d 1030 |
| Parties | , 180 N.E.2d 434 Bernard MINKOFF, Respondent, v. Sigmund BRENNER et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
The owner of first automobile, which collided with second automobile and, as result of collision, was propelled into third automobile, which was parked on the street, brought action against the owner of the second automobile and its driver for personal injuries and property damage. It was contended that the action was barred under defense of res judicata because a prior action by the owner of the third automobile against the owners of the first and second automobile and the driver of the second automobile for property damage sustained by the owner of the third automobile resulted in a judgment against all of the defendants.
Mr. Justice Jenkin R. Hockert refused to allow the plea of res judicata at the Special Term of the City Court, and the owner of the second automobile and its driver appealed.
The Appellate Division, 14 A.D.2d 702, 219 N.Y.S.2d 928, granted the motion by the owner of the second automobile and the driver to appeal to the Court of Appeals and certified the question: 'Is the defense of res judicata, set forth in the affidavit of the attorney for the appellants in support of appellants' motion to amend their answer, a valid defense to the cause of action alleged in the complaint?'
The owner of the second automobile and the driver appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Lawrence Eichner, New York City (Julius L. Goldstein, New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellants.
Nathan Dechter, New York City (Julius J. Scavuzzo, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
Order affirmed, with costs. Question certified answered in the negative.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
B. R. DeWitt, Inc. v. Hall
...249 N.Y.S. 374, (MARTIN, J., dissenting), affd. 256 N.Y. 686, 177 N.E. 193) and Minkoff v. Brenner (13 A.D.2d 838, affd. 10 N.Y.2d 1030, 225 N.Y.S.2d 47, 180 N.E.2d 434). In both cases, the parties to the second suit had been codefendants in an earlier negligence action. In both it was held......
-
Friedman v. Park Lane Motors, Inc.
...Keshin, Blitstein & Co., 165 App.Div. 974, 150 N.Y.S. 157; Martin v. Katz, 15 A.D.2d 767, 223 N.Y.S.2d 122.) Minkoff v. Brenner, 10 N.Y.2d 1030, 225 N.Y.S.2d 47, 180 N.E.2d 434, is not authority to the contrary. There, leave to amend the answer to include the defense of res judicata was den......
-
Brooks v. Horning
...may presage the end of the Glaser rule, which seemed still viable as late as the unanimous 1962 decision in Minkoff v. Brenner, 10 N.Y.2d 1030, 225 N.Y.S.2d 47, 180 N.E.2d 434, the fact remains that it was not expressly overruled or, indeed, referred to in Cummings; and if implicitly it was......
-
Camaioni v. Caruso
...p. 147, 278 N.Y.S.2d p. 601, 225 N.E.2d p. 198, with reference to Glaser and Minkoff v. Brenner, 13 A.D.2d 838, aff'd. 10 N.Y.2d 1030, 225 N.Y.S.2d 47, 180 N.E.2d 434 'whether Glaser and Minkoff should be followed is not before us'. By the same token until the fact pattern of Elder is befor......