Rosen v. Kessler
| Decision Date | 13 May 2008 |
| Docket Number | 2007-04978. |
| Citation | 856 N.Y.S.2d 861,2008 NY Slip Op 04491,51 A.D.3d 761 |
| Parties | LESLIE B. ROSEN et al., Appellants, v. GORDON KESSLER, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The doctrine of res judicata precludes the instant action because, inter alia, it arises from the same transactions as a prior action (see Rosen v Watermill Dev. Corp., 1 AD3d 424 [2003]) and, given that New York does not recognize a separate cause of action to pierce the corporate veil (see Hart v Jassem, 43 AD3d 997, 998 [2007]; Fiber Consultants, Inc. v Fiber Optek Interconnect Corp., 15 AD3d 528, 529 [2005]), it differs from the prior action only in the theory of recovery (see generally Vigliotti v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 24 AD3d 752, 753 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by res judicata.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bd. of Managers of 195 Hudson St. v. Brown Assoc.
...of the wrong upon which the action is brought." (citations omitted)); Jacobson, 111 F.3d at 265; see also Rosen v. Kessler, 51 A.D.3d 761, 856 N.Y.S.2d 861 (N.Y.App.Div.2008) ("The doctrine of res judicata precludes the instant action because, inter alia, it arises from the same transaction......
-
Nelson & Pope Eng'rs & Land Surveyors, PLLC v. Pinewood Dev. Corp.
...to pierce the corporate veil does not constitute a cause of action separate from that against the corporation ( Rosen v. Kessler, 51 AD3d 761, 856 N.Y.S.2d 861 [2d Dept 2008] ; Hart v. Jassem, 43 AD3d 997, 843 N.Y.S.2d 121 [2d Dept 2007] ; Fiber Consultants, Inc. v. Fiber Optek Interconnect......
-
Am. Federated Title Corp. v. GFI Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 13–cv–6437 AJN.
...are liable on a veil-piercing theory. Id.The cases Defendants cite are simply inapposite. For example, in Rosen v. Kessler, 51 A.D.3d 761, 856 N.Y.S.2d 861 (2d Dep't 2008), the individual defendant whom the plaintiff sought to reach via veil-piercing was a defendant in the prior action, in ......
-
Intelligent Prod. Solutions, Inc. v. Morstan Gen. Agency, Inc.
...2014 WL 5638775 [2d Dept 2014] ; Gaetano Dev. Corp. v. Lee, 121 AD3d 838, 2014 WL 5151404 [2d Dept 2014] ; Rosen v. Kessler, 51 AD3d 761, 761, 856 N.Y.S.2d 861 [2d Dept 2008] ; Hart v. Jassem, 43 AD3d 997, 998, 843 N.Y.S.2d 121 [2d Dept 2007] ). Instead, corporate veil piercing is an equita......