In re Chiantella

25 Citing cases

  1. Doe v. Columbia Univ.

    551 F. Supp. 3d 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)   Cited 8 times

    Hanrahan v. Riverhead Nursing Home , 592 F.3d 367, 369 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Nestor v. Pratt & Whitney , 466 F.3d 65, 71 (2d Cir. 2006) ). Under New York law, "[a] stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice without reservation of right or limitation of the claims disposed of is entitled to preclusive effect under the doctrine of res judicata" Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Enbar , 173 A.D.3d 938, 104 N.Y.S.3d 183, 185–86 (2019) ; see alsoLiberty Assoc. v. Etkin , 69 A.D.3d 681, 893 N.Y.S.2d 564, 565–66 (2010) ; Mooney v. Manhattan Occupational, Physical & Speech Therapies, PLLC , 166 A.D.3d 957, 89 N.Y.S.3d 707, 710 (2018) ; Trapani v. Squitieri , 107 A.D.3d 696, 965 N.y.S.2d 887, 887–88 (2013) ; In reChiantella v. Vishnick , 84 A.D.3d 797, 922 N.Y.S.2d 525, 527 (2011). Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief and damages incidental to it relating to the Jane Doe 4 GBM proceeding are barred.

  2. In re Chiantella

    954 N.E.2d 1181 (N.Y. 2011)

    Decided September 22, 2011. Appeal from the 2d Dept: 84 AD3d 797. denied.

  3. Wells Fargo Bank v. Enbar

    173 A.D.3d 938 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    We agree with Legum that the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of his cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. "A stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice without reservation of right or limitation of the claims disposed of is entitled to preclusive effect under the doctrine of res judicata" ( Liberty Assoc. v. Etkin , 69 A.D.3d 681, 682–683, 893 N.Y.S.2d 564 ; seeMooney v. Manhattan Occupational, Physical & Speech Therapies, PLLC , 166 A.D.3d 957, 959, 89 N.Y.S.3d 707 ; Trapani v. Squitieri , 107 A.D.3d 696, 696–697, 965 N.Y.S.2d 887 ; Matter of Chiantella v. Vishnick , 84 A.D.3d 797, 798, 922 N.Y.S.2d 525 ). Here, the plaintiff's contention that its valid stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice only applied to its claims against Legum is refuted by the language of the stipulation itself, as well as by the plaintiff's conduct in the aftermath of its execution, which clearly evinced an understanding that the entire action had been discontinued with prejudice against all parties.

  4. Members of the Dekalb Ave. Condo. Ass'n v. Klein

    172 A.D.3d 1196 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    The cause of action alleging fraud was duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action (seeDoukas v. Ballard, 135 A.D.3d 896, 897, 24 N.Y.S.3d 174 ; Introna v. Huntington Learning Ctrs., Inc., 78 A.D.3d 896, 898, 911 N.Y.S.2d 442 ). The cause of action alleging breach of the housing merchant implied warranty was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as the claims encompassing that cause of action were identical to the claims brought in a prior action by an entity in privity with the current plaintiff, which was disposed of by stipulation of discontinuance "with prejudice" (see Matter of Chiantella v. Vishnick, 84 A.D.3d 797, 798, 922 N.Y.S.2d 525 ). SCHEINKMAN, P.J., DILLON, MALTESE and LASALLE, JJ., concur.

  5. Desouza v. LSREF2 Apex 2, LLC

    171 A.D.3d 702 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    " ‘Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding’ " ( Bayer v. City of New York, 115 A.D.3d 897, 898, 983 N.Y.S.2d 61, quoting Abraham v. Hermitage Ins. Co., 47 A.D.3d 855, 855, 851 N.Y.S.2d 608 ). " ‘A stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice without reservation of right or limitation of the claims disposed of is entitled to preclusive effect under the doctrine of res judicata’ " ( Cora v. Ranjan, 98 A.D.3d 598, 599, 949 N.Y.S.2d 503, quoting Liberty Assoc. v. Etkin, 69 A.D.3d 681,682–683, 893 N.Y.S.2d 564 ; seeMatter of Chiantella v. Vishnick, 84 A.D.3d 797, 798, 922 N.Y.S.2d 525 ; Matter of Hofmann, 287 A.D.2d 119, 123, 733 N.Y.S.2d 168 ). Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the issue of the proper amount due under the mortgage loan, which is at issue in this action and was at issue in the prior foreclosure action, was resolved when the foreclosure action was settled and the plaintiff entered into the stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice. Thus, the defendants established, prima facie, that the stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice was entitled to preclusive effect under the doctrine of res judicata so as to preclude relitigation of the issue of the proper amount owed under the mortgage loan.

  6. Mooney v. Manhattan Occupational, Physical & Speech Therapies, PLLC

    166 A.D.3d 957 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   Cited 24 times

    The only change in her cause of action is the statute under which she seeks to recover. As such, the cause of action in this action arises out of the same set of operative facts as the cause of action in the first action, and it could have been raised in that prior action (seeJohnson v. City of New York, 148 A.D.3d 1126, 1127, 50 N.Y.S.3d 461 ; Webb v. Greater N.Y. Auto. Dealers Assn., Inc., 144 A.D.3d 1134, 1135, 42 N.Y.S.3d 324 ). Moreover, " ‘[a] stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice without reservation of right or limitation of the claims disposed of is entitled to preclusive effect under the doctrine of res judicata’ " ( Cora v. Ranjan, 98 A.D.3d 598, 599, 949 N.Y.S.2d 503, quoting Liberty Assoc. v. Etkin, 69 A.D.3d 681, 683, 893 N.Y.S.2d 564 ; see Matter of Chiantella v. Vishnick, 84 A.D.3d 797, 798, 922 N.Y.S.2d 525 ). Here, the plaintiff's counsel prepared and executed the stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice in the first action, without reserving any rights or limiting the causes of action disposed of.

  7. Clerico v. Pollack

    148 A.D.3d 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 10 times

    " ‘Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding’ " (Bayer v. City of New York, 115 A.D.3d 897, 898, 983 N.Y.S.2d 61, quoting Abraham v. Hermitage Ins. Co., 47 A.D.3d 855, 855, 851 N.Y.S.2d 608 ). "Pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, a valid final judgment, or a stipulation of settlement withdrawing a cause of action ‘with prejudice,’ bars future actions between the same parties on the same cause of action" (Matter of Chiantella v. Vishnick, 84 A.D.3d 797, 798, 922 N.Y.S.2d 525 [internal citations omitted]; seeCPLR 3217[a] [2] ; North Shore–Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc. v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 27 A.D.3d 439, 440, 811 N.Y.S.2d 424 ; Matter of State of New York v. Seaport Manor A.C.F., 19 A.D.3d 609, 610, 797 N.Y.S.2d 538 ).

  8. Unger v. Coyle

    144 A.D.3d 668 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 5 times

    A stipulation of settlement withdrawing a cause of action with prejudice is entitled to preclusive effect under the doctrine of res judicata (see Matter of Chiantella v. Vishnick, 84 A.D.3d 797, 798, 922 N.Y.S.2d 525 ; Liberty Assoc. v. Etkin, 69 A.D.3d 681, 682, 893 N.Y.S.2d 564 ). However, a stipulation of settlement may be set aside on the grounds of fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, overreaching, or that its terms are unconscionable (see Gilbert v. Gilbert, 291 A.D.2d 479, 480, 738 N.Y.S.2d 221 ; see also McCoy v. Feinman, 99 N.Y.2d 295, 302, 755 N.Y.S.2d 693, 785 N.E.2d 714 ; Matter of Davis [Padilla], 133 A.D.3d 853, 853–854, 19 N.Y.S.3d 753 ).

  9. Reyes v. Ruiz

    132 A.D.3d 834 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

    In general, the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata bar, under certain circumstances, relitigating in a subsequent action issues and causes of action, respectively, that were already finally decided in a prior action (see Parker v. Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 N.Y.2d 343, 349, 690 N.Y.S.2d 478, 712 N.E.2d 647 ; Ryan v. New York Tel. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494, 500, 478 N.Y.S.2d 823, 467 N.E.2d 487 ; O'Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353, 357, 445 N.Y.S.2d 687, 429 N.E.2d 1158 ; Matter of Chiantella v. Vishnick, 84 A.D.3d 797, 798, 922 N.Y.S.2d 525 ; North Shore–Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc. v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 27 A.D.3d 439, 440, 811 N.Y.S.2d 424 ). The doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata cannot be used in a single action in the manner proffered by Sanchez herein.

  10. Gowda v. Reddy

    105 A.D.3d 957 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 3 times

    However, the Family Court erred in calculating the father's child support arrears to include the period prior to August 6, 2008, the date the mother's petition filed in Pennsylvania to modify the father's child support obligation set forth in the Pennsylvania support order was dismissed, upon the parties' stipulation, with prejudice. “A stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice without reservation of right or limitation of the claims disposed of is entitled to preclusive effect under the doctrine of res judicata” ( Liberty Assoc. v. Etkin, 69 A.D.3d 681, 682–683, 893 N.Y.S.2d 564;see Matter of Chiantella v. Vishnick, 84 A.D.3d 797, 798, 922 N.Y.S.2d 525). Thus, to the extent this proceeding seeks recovery of the same child support arrears that were sought in the Pennsylvania proceeding which was dismissed upon the parties' stipulation, with prejudice, it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata ( see Liberty Assoc. v. Etkin, 69 A.D.3d at 682–683, 893 N.Y.S.2d 564).