From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Remeeder Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc. v. Wallace

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 4, 1995
222 A.D.2d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

December 4, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.).


Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiff's arguments, both of the lawsuits which it commenced against the defendant arose from the same series of transactions between the parties and both sought the same relief. Indeed, the complaints in both actions were virtually identical. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the instant action based upon the doctrine of res judicata once it became aware that the prior action had been dismissed with prejudice. "[O]nce a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy" (O'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353, 357; see also, Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 N.Y.2d 185; Couri v Westchester Country Club, 186 A.D.2d 715).

We have considered the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Remeeder Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc. v. Wallace

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 4, 1995
222 A.D.2d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Remeeder Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc. v. Wallace

Case Details

Full title:REMEEDER HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. FRED L…

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

Date published: Dec 4, 1995

Citations

222 A.D.2d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
635 N.Y.S.2d 521

Citing Cases

Aard-Vark Agency, Ltd. v. Prager

The defendants did not appeal from the prior order. The quoted language of the Supreme Court from its prior…

Aard-Vark Agency, Ltd. v. Prager

The defendants did not appeal from the prior order. The quoted language of the Supreme Court from its prior…