Platon v. Linden-Marshall Contracting Inc., 9952
| Citation | 176 A.D.3d 409,109 N.Y.S.3d 41 |
| Decision Date | 01 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | Index 657256/17,9952 |
| Parties | Ana Maria PLATON, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. LINDEN–MARSHALL CONTRACTING INC., Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
176 A.D.3d 409
109 N.Y.S.3d 41
Ana Maria PLATON, Plaintiff–Respondent,
v.
LINDEN–MARSHALL CONTRACTING INC., Defendant–Appellant.
9952
Index 657256/17
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
ENTERED: OCTOBER 1, 2019
Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, New York (Glenn A. Kaminska of counsel), for appellant.
Frey & Kozak LLP, New York (Zachary A. Kozak of counsel), for respondent.
Richter, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kern, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered September 10, 2018, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims for statutory right to cancel the contract, negligence, fraud in the inducement, and statutory penalties pursuant to the General Business Law, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted as to these claims. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.
This action arises out of allegedly unsatisfactory renovation work performed by defendant on a bathroom owned by plaintiff. A prior action in small claims court resulted in a judgment, after trial, dismissing plaintiff's breach of contract claim in connection with this work and awarding defendant judgment on its counterclaim. The parties dispute whether plaintiff is now
barred by the doctrine of res judicata from asserting the instant claims for negligence, fraud in the inducement, and violations of the General Business Law.
The doctrine of res judicata bars all claims "arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions" as a claim that was previously resolved "on the merits" and which the party opposing preclusion had "a full and fair opportunity to litigate" ( Matter of Hunter, 4 N.Y.3d 260, 269, 794 N.Y.S.2d 286, 827 N.E.2d 269 [2005] ). Under this transactional approach, "once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Style Asia, Inc. v. J Club
...100 (2005); Rojas v. Romanoff, ___ A.D.3d ___, 2020 WL 4210402, at *3 (1st Dep't July 23, 2020); Platon v. Linden-Marshall Constr. Inc, 176 A.D.3d 409, 410 (1st Dep't 2019); Avilon Auto. Group v. Leontiev, 168 A.D.3d 78, 85 (1st Dep't 2019). Plaintiff commenced a prior action, which include......
-
Simmons v. Trans Express Inc.
...but not from having claim preclusion effect (res judicata), in subsequent actions." Id. at 310.In Platon v. Linden-Marshall Contracting Inc. , 109 N.Y.S.3d 41, 176 A.D.3d 409 (1st Dep’t 2019), the First Department held similarly, determining that "[a]lthough judgments of the small claims co......
-
Saiti v. 316 E. 68th St. Corp.
...O'Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353, 357–358, 445 N.Y.S.2d 687, 429 N.E.2d 1158 [1981] ; Platon v. Linden–Marshall Contr. Inc., 176 A.D.3d 409, 410, 109 N.Y.S.3d 41 [1st Dept. 2019] ; Getty Props. Corp. v. Getty Petroleum Mktg. Inc., 150 A.D.3d 541, 542, 55 N.Y.S.3d 186 [1st Dept. 20......
-
Payne v. Jackson
...Contrary to plaintiff's argument, a small claims judgment may have res judicata effect (see Platon v Linden-Marshall Contracting Inc., 176 A.D.3d 409 [1st Dept 2019]). "'Under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars future actions between the same parties,' or those i......