From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Glass v. Glass

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 26, 1992
186 A.D.2d 787 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

October 26, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.).


Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

"[A] party to a concluded matrimonial action, who had a full and fair opportunity to contest title to the former marital home, is barred by res judicata principles from subsequently and separately reopening that issue" (Boronow v Boronow, 71 N.Y.2d 284, 286). We disagree with the plaintiff's contention that in his prior unsuccessful matrimonial action he was denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claim that a constructive trust should be imposed on the marital residence. Under the circumstances, this plenary action to adjudicate the issue of title to the marital residence, which could have been, but was not litigated in the prior matrimonial action, is barred (see, Boronow v Boronow, supra; Rakowski v Rakowski, 109 A.D.2d 1; see also, Brady v Brady, 101 A.D.2d 797, affd 64 N.Y.2d 339; Stepakoff v Stepakoff, 96 A.D.2d 1097). Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Balletta and Copertino, JJ, concur.


Summaries of

Glass v. Glass

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 26, 1992
186 A.D.2d 787 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Glass v. Glass

Case Details

Full title:JAMES GLASS, Appellant, v. KATHY GLASS, Respondent

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

Date published: Oct 26, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 787 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
589 N.Y.S.2d 86

Citing Cases

Ventura v. M.A.F. Estates Inc.

Thus, when alternative theories are available to recover what is essentially the same relief for harm arising…

Sparacio v. Sparacio

Thus, in the context of the prior Family Court proceeding, the plaintiff did not have a full and fair…