X-Act Contracting Corp. v. Flanders

• Decision Date: 16 March 2017
• Docket Number: 3288, 157719/14.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: X–ACT CONTRACTING CORPORATION, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Susan FLANDERS, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

148 A.D.3d 518

50 N.Y.S.3d 45

X–ACT CONTRACTING CORPORATION, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.Susan FLANDERS, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

3288, 157719/14.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

March 16, 2017.

The Law Offices of Paul J. Solda, New York (Paul J. Solda of counsel), for appellant.

Goodman & Jacobs LLP, New York (Sue C. Jacobs of counsel), for Susan Flanders, respondent.

Abrams Garfinkel Margolis Bergson, LLP, New York (Eric B. Post of counsel), for Kenneth L. Kutner and Law Offices of Kenneth L. Kutner, respondents.

TOM, J.P., ACOSTA, RICHTER, MANZANET–DANIELS, KAHN, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered December 21, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motions of defendants Susan Flanders and Kenneth L. Kutner and Kenneth L. Kutner d/b/a Law Offices of Kenneth L. Kutner (together, Kutner) to dismiss the abuse of process cause of action against them, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the Kutner defendants' motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The doctrine of res judicata does not bar the abuse of process claim at issue, since X–Act's claims do not arise "out of the same transaction or series of transactions" as the prior negligence and breach of contract action against Flanders (see Zito v. Harding, 110 A.D.3d 628, 629, 975 N.Y.S.2d 2 [1st Dept.2013] ). The prior action involved a dispute between X–Act and Flanders over X–Act's work on a renovation project, and the present complaint involves allegations that Kutner obtained a judgment upon a so-ordered stipulation of settlement, based on a false affirmation, and then served restraining notices and refused to vacate the judgment, even after receiving proof of payment. Moreover, there was no point at which X–Act could have asserted the instant claim in the prior Civil Court action, since the case had settled by the time the alleged wrongdoing occurred. Further, in this action, X–Act is not seeking sanctions or attorneys' fees that have already been recovered, but rather damages proximately flowing from a material misrepresentation in the prior action (see Melcher v. Greenberg Traurig LLP, 135 A.D.3d 547, 553, 24 N.Y.S.3d 249 [1st Dept.2016] ).

The Kutner defendants are not entitled to dismissal of the abuse of process claim on the alternate grounds that the cause of action is not adequately pleaded (CPLR 3211[a][7] ). At the pleading stage, X–Act's complaint sufficiently states a claim for...