From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Syllman v. Creditor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 3, 1999
261 A.D.2d 395 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

May 3, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.).


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

In a prior 1994 complaint against the same defendants (hereinafter the 1994 complaint), the plaintiff sought to recover damages, inter alia, for fraud and breach of duty as a fiduciary and officer of the court, based on an alleged false statement of the defendant Richard Creditor concerning the plaintiff's failure to pay the April 1990 maintenance/rent for the plaintiff's apartment. Creditor's statement was made in an affirmation submitted in an earlier landlord/tenant proceeding against the plaintiff, in which Creditor and his law firm represented the plaintiff's landlord. The parties do not dispute that by order dated October 29, 1996, the 1994 complaint was dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a cause of action.

The present complaint (hereinafter the 1997 complaint) asserts three causes of action, the first and third of which, asserted against Creditor and his law firm, have already been dismissed. The second cause of action, against Creditor only, sought to recover damages pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487, based on the same allegedly false statement concerning the April 1990 maintenance/rent, and other allegedly false statements made by Creditor during either the landlord/tenant or related proceedings.

The court properly determined that the second cause of action interposed in the 1997 complaint was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. All of the allegations arose out of the same transactions and occurrences that were at issue in the 1994 complaint, and the plaintiff seeks the same relief, although under an alternative theory, as that sought in the 1994 complaint ( see, O'Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353, 356; Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v. Lopez, 46 N.Y.2d 481, 485; Beninati v. Nicotra, 239 A.D.2d 242). In addition, the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars the second cause of action ( see, Matter of Juan C. v. Cortines, 89 N.Y.2d 659, 666; D'Arata v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 N.Y.2d 659, 664; Staatsburg Water Co. v. Staatsburg Fire Dist., 72 N.Y.2d 147, 152).

Mangano, P. J., Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Syllman v. Creditor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 3, 1999
261 A.D.2d 395 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Syllman v. Creditor

Case Details

Full title:JONATHAN SYLLMAN, Appellant, v. RICHARD CREDITOR, Appellant, et al.…

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

Date published: May 3, 1999

Citations

261 A.D.2d 395 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
689 N.Y.S.2d 522

Citing Cases

Pappas v. Cerrone

The doctrine of res judicata bars the plaintiffs from filing a second complaint presenting allegations that…