| Matter of City of New York v Schmitt |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03644 [50 AD3d 1032] |
| April 22, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of City of New York, Respondent, v AdeleSchmitt, Respondent, and John Schmitt et al., Doing Business as Channel Marine Suzsucki andSchmitt's Marina, et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F.X. Hart, WarrenShaw, and Tahirih M. Sandrieh of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
In a summary dispossess proceeding and a related holdover proceeding, John Schmitt andAdam Schmitt, doing business as Channel Marine Suzsucki and Schmitt's Marina, AdamSchmitt, doing business as Adams Fishing Station, and Channel Marine Sales, Inc., appeal, bypermission, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Appellate Term of theSupreme Court for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts dated May 1, 2006, as (1) reversedso much of an order of the Civil Court, Queens County (Gottlieb, J.), dated September 24, 2004,as denied those branches of the petitioner's cross motion in proceeding No. 1 which were forsummary judgment on its causes of action for possession of the real property and to recover useand occupancy and thereupon granted those branches of the cross motion, and (2) reversed somuch of an order of the same court also dated September 24, 2004, as denied those branches ofthe petitioner's cross motion in proceeding No. 2 which were for summary judgment on its causesof action for possession of the real property and to recover use and occupancy and thereupongranted those branches of the cross motion.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The parties' respective rights to the subject properties were fully litigated and finally [*2]determined in a previous action (see United States vSchmitt, 999 F Supp 317 [1998], affd 28 Fed Appx 63 [2002]). Under the doctrine ofres judicata, a final disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties of all otherclaims arising out of the same transaction or out of the same or related facts, even if based upon adifferent theory involving materially different elements of proof (see O'Brien v City ofSyracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357-358 [1981]; Sterngass v Soffer, 27 AD3d 549 [2006]; Town of New Windsor v New WindsorVolunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc., 16 AD3d 403, 404-405 [2005]). The rule applies notonly to claims litigated but also to claims that could have been raised in the prior litigation (see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260,269 [2005]; Hyman v Hillelson, 55 NY2d 624 [1981]; Solow v Liebman, 253AD2d 808, 809 [1998]).
Accordingly, the Appellate Term correctly determined that, consistent with the holding inUnited States v Schmitt (999 F Supp 317 [1998], affd 28 Fed Appx 63 [2002]),the petitioner City of New York established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of lawawarding it possession of the subject properties and the appellants' assertion of defenses, whichwere previously litigated or could have been litigated in the prior action, was insufficient to raisea triable issue of fact. Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.