From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kovitz v. Tesmetges

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 10, 1992
186 A.D.2d 32 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

September 10, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol H. Arber, J.).


The individual defendants, husband ("Harry") and wife ("Terry"), were the principals of the corporate defendant to which plaintiff made a $10,000 loan secured by a second mortgage. When the corporate defendant defaulted in payment on the first mortgage, the foreclosure wiped out plaintiff's junior lien as well. Thereafter, Harry filed for bankruptcy; plaintiff appeared in the proceedings and vigorously opposed Harry's discharge, seeking to pierce the corporate veil and to enforce Harry's personal liability to him on the ground of alleged fraud. This effort failed before the Bankruptcy Court, the United States District Court, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and Harry was ultimately exonerated of any obligation to plaintiff.

Plaintiff seeks in this action to relitigate against Terry the same issues determined adversely to him in the prolonged bankruptcy proceedings. Since Terry was and is in complete privity with Harry, and since plaintiff had a full opportunity to litigate those issues, his identical claims in this action are barred by collateral estoppel, and the IAS Court properly dismissed the complaint (see, Firedoor Corp. v Merlin Indus., 86 A.D.2d 577; cf., Green v Sante Fe Indus., 70 N.Y.2d 244).

We have reviewed the plaintiff's remaining pro se claims and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Kovitz v. Tesmetges

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 10, 1992
186 A.D.2d 32 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Kovitz v. Tesmetges

Case Details

Full title:PHILIP M. KOVITZ, Appellant, v. HARRY TESMETGES et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Sep 10, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 32 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
586 N.Y.S.2d 972

Citing Cases

Suter v. Ross

Here, collateral estoppel applies to Suter, the plaintiff in the previous action, because she had a full and…

St. Martin v. St. Martin

Under prior bankruptcy law, the classification of the obligation as property division or spousal or child…