From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McBride v. Mariah Boats, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 19, 2001
288 A.D.2d 359 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued October 4, 2001.

November 19, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal (1), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated March 19, 2001, as granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and (2) from a judgment of the same court, dated April 4, 2001, which, upon the order, dismissed the complaint.

Larkin, Axelrod, Trachte Tetenbaum, LLP, Newburgh, N.Y. (James Alexander Burke of counsel), for appellants.

Alan I. Lamer, Elmsford, N.Y. (Fiedelman McGaw, Jericho, N Y [Andrew Zajac] of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501[a][1]).

The plaintiffs contend that, pursuant to CPLR 5013, the dismissal of their prior action after opening statements at trial, was not on the merits. However, CPLR 5013 does not require that the exact words "on the merits" be used for a judgment to be given res judicata effect. It is sufficient that it is apparent from the judgment that the dismissal was on the merits (see, Strange v. Montefiore Hosp. Med. Center, 59 N.Y.2d 737). The Supreme Court found a substantive basis for dismissal of the prior action, and, whether correct or erroneous, the plaintiffs did not appeal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed this action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see, Flynn v. Sinclair Oil Corp., 20 A.D.2d 636, affd 14 N.Y.2d 853; Linton v. Perry Knitting Co., 295 N.Y. 14; Grinstein v. Official Laura Branigan Fan Club, 174 A.D.2d 545).

SANTUCCI, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

McBride v. Mariah Boats, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 19, 2001
288 A.D.2d 359 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

McBride v. Mariah Boats, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH McBRIDE, ET AL., appellants, v. MARIAH BOATS, INC., respondent

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

Date published: Nov 19, 2001

Citations

288 A.D.2d 359 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
733 N.Y.S.2d 629

Citing Cases

Vasani v. CIBC, Inc.

However, unlike the fraud portion of the dismissal for insufficiency of pleadings, Justice Coin expressly…

Cartagena v. Lee

The Civil Court treated the defendants' application as, in effect, for a directed verdict pursuant to CPLR…