From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pullman Group v. Prudential Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 24, 2002
297 A.D.2d 578 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

1529

September 24, 2002.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered March 20, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from, denied, in part, defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on res judicata grounds, granted plaintiff's cross motion to supplement the record, and granted, in part, plaintiff's cross motion to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

STUART E. ABRAMS, for plaintiff-respondent.

THOMAS J. KAVALER, for defendants-appellants.

Before: Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin, JJ.


Since a dismissal premised on lack of standing is not a dismissal on the merits for res judicata purposes, plaintiff is not precluded from reasserting the same claims based on newly conferred rights which cure the prior lack of capacity (see Alco Gravure v. Knapp Found., 64 N.Y.2d 458, 465; Tong v. Hang Seng Bank, 210 A.D.2d 99, 100). The dismissal of plaintiff's prior action, based on the determination that plaintiff neither owned the intellectual property at issue, nor had an express assignment of the rights thereto (see Pullman Group, LLC v. The Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 288 A.D.2d 2), is therefore not a bar to the instant action.

We have considered defendants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Pullman Group v. Prudential Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 24, 2002
297 A.D.2d 578 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Pullman Group v. Prudential Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:THE PULLMAN GROUP, LLC, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Sep 24, 2002

Citations

297 A.D.2d 578 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
747 N.Y.S.2d 170

Citing Cases

EMIC Corp. v. Barenblatt

In opposition, EMIC argues that res judicata does not bar this action. This is because, according to EMIC, "a…

EMIC Corp. v. Barenblatt

In opposition, EMIC argues that res judicata does not bar this action. This is because, according to EMIC, "a…