Opinion
November 24, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.).
Given that an overarching concern in applying the doctrine of res judicata is for fairness ( see, Matter of Hodes v. Axelrod, 70 N.Y.2d 364, 374), we find that the issues posed by the instant litigation, as limited by the prior decision of this Court ( see, McMahan Co. v. Bass, 250 A.D.2d 460) and by those portions of the instant order not challenged on appeal, and the issues presented in the relevant prior Federal litigation ( see, Toto v. McMahan, Brafman, Morgan Co., 1995 US Dist LEXIS 1399 [SD NY, Feb. 7, 1995, Keenan, J.]), are not so closely related in time, space, motivation, or origin, that treating them as a unit would have been convenient for trial and would have conformed to the parties' expectations ( cf., Schwartzreich v. E.P. C. Carting Co., 246 A.D.2d 439). The Federal action concerned fraudulent inducement to enter into the limited partnership and subsequent repurchase contracts, whereas this action is now focused on the alleged breach of a duty to make a single payment under the second contract ( see, Finkelstein v. Ilan, 239 A.D.2d 545, 546).
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.