Opinion
6839/07 362A 362 361.
03-01-2016
Michael ROBINSON, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. 1528 WHITE PLAINS ROAD REALTY, INC., et al., Defendants–Respondents, Helen & Sons Movers, Inc., Defendant.
Law Offices of Alana Barran, P.C., New York (Alana Barran of counsel), for appellant. Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, Valhalla (Edward J. Guardaro, Jr. of counsel), for respondents.
Law Offices of Alana Barran, P.C., New York (Alana Barran of counsel), for appellant.
Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, Valhalla (Edward J. Guardaro, Jr. of counsel), for respondents.
Opinion
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered September 19, 2013, dismissing the complaint as against defendants 1528 White Plains Road Realty, Inc. and Harry Balsamo (defendants), unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 16, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint against them, and appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about November 6, 2013, which, to the extent appealable, denied plaintiff's motion to renew defendants' cross motion to dismiss, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.
The motion court correctly dismissed the complaint against defendants as barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The issues raised in this action were fully litigated and decided against plaintiff in a Civil Court proceeding (Ryan v. New York Tel. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494, 500–501, 478 N.Y.S.2d 823, 467 N.E.2d 487 1984; see also Bell v. Alden Owners, 299 A.D.2d 207, 208, 750 N.Y.S.2d 27 1st Dept.2002, lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 506, 763 N.Y.S.2d 812, 795 N.E.2d 38 2003 ). Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the Civil Court (62 N.Y.2d at 501, 478 N.Y.S.2d 823, 467 N.E.2d 487). To the extent any issue in this action was not raised and decided in the Civil Court proceeding, plaintiff's claims in this action are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as his claims arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the claims raised and brought to a final conclusion in the Civil Court proceeding (O'Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353, 357, 445 N.Y.S.2d 687, 429 N.E.2d 1158 1981 ).
The motion court correctly denied plaintiff's motion to renew, because he did not proffer a reasonable excuse for his failure to submit the new evidence when initially opposing defendants' cross motion (see 225 Fifth Ave. Retail LLC v. 225 5th, LLC, 92 A.D.3d 471, 472, 937 N.Y.S.2d 852 1st Dept.2012 ). In any event, as noted by the motion court, the new evidence would not have changed the motion court's original determination.