| Abraham v Hermitage Ins. Co. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00634 [47 AD3d 855] |
| January 29, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Tony Abraham, Appellant, v Hermitage InsuranceCompany et al., Defendants, and Eagle Insurance Company,Respondent. |
—[*1]
In an action to enforce a judgment pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420, the plaintiffappeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, QueensCounty (Kelly, J.), entered April 6, 2006, as, upon an order of the same court entered January 23,2006, granting that branch of the motion of the defendant Eagle Insurance Company which wasfor summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and denying thatbranch of his motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as assertedagainst that defendant, is in favor of the defendant Eagle Insurance Company and against himdismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between thesame parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the sametransaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have beenraised in the prior proceeding (seeMatter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]; Barbieri v Bridge Funding, 5 AD3d 414, 415 [2004]; Winkler vWeiss, 294 AD2d 428, 429 [2002]). The fact that causes of action may be stated separatelyor invoke different legal theories, will not permit relitigation of claims (see Matter of Hodes vAxelrod, 70 NY2d 364, 372 [1987]).
Here, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Eagle[*2]Insurance Company (hereinafter Eagle) which was forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground of resjudicata, as the plaintiff's claims regarding whether there is coverage under the Eagle policycould have been raised in a prior action which was disposed of on the merits (see Sabatino v Capco Trading, Inc., 27AD3d 1019 [2006]; Barbieri v Bridge Funding, 5 AD3d at 415; CRK Contr. ofSuffolk v Brown & Assoc., 260 AD2d 530 [1999]).
In light of the foregoing determination, the plaintiff's remaining contentions have beenrendered academic. Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Miller and Dickerson, JJ., concur.