From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

React Service, Inc. v. Rindos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 14, 1997
243 A.D.2d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

October 14, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.).


Ordered that the appeals from the orders are dismissed; and it is further,

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

Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate orders 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 on the appeals from the orders are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment ( see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

In a prior action, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement in open court in which they agreed to discontinue all claims and counterclaims with prejudice. The settlement also provided that the defendants were to cease soliciting the plaintiffs customers for a specified period of time. The instant action was commenced seeking, in large measure, the same relief sought in the prior action.

Under the terms of the settlement and in light of the res judicata effect accorded stipulations of discontinuance with prejudice ( see, Matter of Phyllis W. v. Bernie X., 203 A.D.2d 694; Dolitsky's Dry Cleaners v. Y L Jericho Dry Cleaners, 203 A.D.2d 322; Forte v. Kaneka Am. Corp., 110 A.D.2d 81), the causes of action seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages for unfair competition were properly dismissed. Furthermore, the remaining cause of action, which alleged libel, was time-barred ( see, CPLR 215).

The plaintiff's cross motion to amend the complaint to add a claim seeking vacatur of the settlement was properly denied since the claim was fully litigated in the prior action ( see, O'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353; Smith v. Russell Sage Coll., 54 N.Y.2d 185), and the appeal therefrom has been determined ( see, React Serv. v. Rindos, 243 A.D.2d 552 [decided herewith] ).

In light of the foregoing, the Court's denial of a preliminary injunction was appropriate ( see, CPLR 6301; Skaggs-Walsh, Inc. v Chmiel, 224 A.D.2d 680). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

React Service, Inc. v. Rindos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 14, 1997
243 A.D.2d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

React Service, Inc. v. Rindos

Case Details

Full title:REACT SERVICE, INC., Appellant, v. GARY RINDOS et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Oct 14, 1997

Citations

243 A.D.2d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
662 N.Y.S.2d 844