Summary
In Matter of Sud v. Sud, (227 A.D.2d 319 [1st Dept 1996]), a similar case to the present action, the plaintiff's breach of contract claims were also dismissed in a prior action and, as here, subsequently dismissed again on the grounds of collateral estoppel and res judicata.
Summary of this case from Owssom Builders, LLC v. J & F Refrigeration Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc.Opinion
May 28, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.).
The IAS Court properly dismissed this action pursuant to the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel since the subject claims regarding breach of a family contract to provide financial support to assist siblings with graduate educations and careers were essentially the same as those set forth in the prior action ( Matter of Sud v. Sud, 211 A.D.2d 423), which had been dismissed on the merits. The complaint in this action failed to cure the fatal defects in the complaint of the prior action, which rendered the contract vague and indefinite as to the amount of support and length of time to be provided ( see, Cobble Hill Nursing Home v. Henry Warren Corp., 74 N.Y.2d 475, 482-483; Chrysler Capital Corp. v. Hilltop Egg Farms, 129 A.D.2d 927), and the additional claims and theories arise out of the same facts and could have been litigated in the first action ( see, O'Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353, 357-358).
The court also properly imposed sanctions against plaintiff pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 for persisting in the prosecution of frivolous litigation and properly enjoined plaintiff from further pro se litigation relating to these claims without court approval. These measures were appropriate to prevent use of the judicial system as a vehicle for harassment, ill will and spite ( see, Ultracashmere House v. Kenston Warehousing Corp., 166 A.D.2d 386, appeal dismissed 77 N.Y.2d 873, lv dismissed and denied 78 N.Y.2d 984).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.