Summary
In Munroe v. Park Ave S. Mgt. (99 AD3d 426 [2012]), a tenant commenced an action against her landlord and the landlord's managing agent, asserting the same claims that she had asserted as counterclaims in a prior nonpayment proceeding commenced by the landlord.
Summary of this case from Milton v. SubrajOpinion
2012-10-4
Lorraine MUNROE, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. PARK AVE SOUTH MANAGEMENT, et al., Defendants–Respondents. Lorraine Munroe, Claimant–Appellant, v. The State of New York, Defendant–Respondent.
Lorraine Munroe, appellant pro se. Heiberger & Associates, P.C., New York (Ricardo Vasquez of counsel), for Park Ave South Management and 3053 Hull Ave LLC, respondents.
Lorraine Munroe, appellant pro se. Heiberger & Associates, P.C., New York (Ricardo Vasquez of counsel), for Park Ave South Management and 3053 Hull Ave LLC, respondents.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Sudarsana Srinivasan of counsel), for The State of New York, respondent.
GONZALEZ, P.J., SAXE, DeGRASSE, FREEDMAN, ROMÁN, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about June 14, 2011, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, and orders, Court of Claims of the State of New York (Alan C. Marin, J.), entered June 30, 2011, granting defendant's motions to dismiss the claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Supreme Court properly determined that plaintiff's action, alleging that her landlord and its managing agent overcharged her and failed to provide repairs and services, is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel ( see Parker v. Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 N.Y.2d 343, 347, 690 N.Y.S.2d 478, 712 N.E.2d 647 [1999];Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v. Lopez, 46 N.Y.2d 481, 486, 414 N.Y.S.2d 308, 386 N.E.2d 1328 [1979] ). Those claims were asserted as counterclaims in a nonpayment action and dismissed by the Housing Court, and plaintiff's new allegation of harassment by defendants should have been raised in the Housing Court.
The Court of Claims correctly determined that the claims against the Housing Court Judge and the Supreme Court Judge, based upon the aforementioned proceedings, were barred by judicial immunity. Claimant did not assert that any of the judges' acts were performed in the clear absence of jurisdiction ( see Murray v. Brancato, 290 N.Y. 52, 48 N.E.2d 257 [1943];Rosenstein v. State of New York, 37 A.D.3d 208, 829 N.Y.S.2d 93 [1st Dept.2007] ). In addition, the Court of Claims properly determined that the claim against the Housing Court Judge was untimely ( seeCourt of Claims Act §§ 10[3], 11 [a]; Byrne v. State of New York, 104 A.D.2d 782, 480 N.Y.S.2d 225 [1st Dept.1984], lv. denied64 N.Y.2d 607, 488 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 477 N.E.2d 1107 [1985] ).