From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

P.W.B. Enterprises v. Moklam Enterprises

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 9, 1995
221 A.D.2d 184 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

November 9, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Angela Mazzarelli, J.).


A party, or one in privity with a party, is collaterally estopped from relitigating an issue identical to one that was necessarily decided against it in a prior action provided there was a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination ( D'Arata v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 N.Y.2d 659, 664). Defendant was clearly accorded a full and fair opportunity in the Civil Court nonpayment proceeding it had brought against plaintiff to challenge plaintiff's defense therein of a partial constructive eviction ( see, Minjak Co. v Randolph, 140 A.D.2d 245, 248). However, the Civil Court found, and the Appellate Term affirmed, that defendant was aware of the renovations that had been undertaken in the building, permitted the work to continue and was, consequently, responsible for the attendant damage that was caused to the premises rented by plaintiff and deprived it of the use of a portion of the space. Furthermore, the Civil Court, deeming defendant's witnesses to be lacking in credibility, was entirely unconvinced by its claim of lack of notice. The finding of a partial constructive eviction renders defendant liable in damages for trespass and negligence. Wrongful eviction is a trespass ( Long Is. Airports Limousine Serv. Corp. v Northwest Airlines, 124 A.D.2d 711, 714), and the question of defendant's intent was fully litigated in the nonpayment proceeding. So too were all the elements of a cause of action for negligence — "(1) the existence of a duty on defendant's part as to plaintiff; (2) a breach of this duty; and (3) injury to the plaintiff as a result thereof" ( Akins v Glens Falls City School Dist., 53 N.Y.2d 325, 333).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

P.W.B. Enterprises v. Moklam Enterprises

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 9, 1995
221 A.D.2d 184 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

P.W.B. Enterprises v. Moklam Enterprises

Case Details

Full title:P.W.B. ENTERPRISES, INC., Respondent, v. MOKLAM ENTERPRISES, INC.…

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

Date published: Nov 9, 1995

Citations

221 A.D.2d 184 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
633 N.Y.S.2d 159

Citing Cases

Tuck-It-Away at 135th St. v. Tuck-It-Away Assocs.

Respondents' second affirmative defense alleges petitioner's petition is barred by the doctrine of waiver…

Town Tennis Member Club, Inc. v. Plaza 400 Owners Corp.

Only the measure of recoverable damages may be different. PWB Enterprises, Inc. v. Mokiam Enterprises, Inc.,…