| Toscano v 4B's Realty VIII Southampton Brick & Tile, LLC |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03832 [84 AD3d 780] |
| May 3, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Angelo Toscano et al., Appellants, v 4B's Realty VIIISouthampton Brick & Tile, LLC, et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Lynn, Gartner & Dunne, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert P. Lynn, Jr., and Stephen W.Livingston of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to quiet title to real property pursuant to RPAPL article 15 and to recoverdamages for fraud, unjust enrichment, and conversion, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of theSupreme Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), dated April 9, 2010, which granted the defendants'motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
" '[T]he general doctrine of res judicata gives binding effect to the judgment of acourt of competent jurisdiction and prevents the parties to an action, and those in privity withthem, from subsequently relitigating any questions that were necessarily decided therein' " (Landau, P.C. v LaRossa, Mitchell &Ross, 11 NY3d 8, 13 [2008], quoting Matter of Grainger [Shea Enters.], 309 NY605, 616 [1956]). Under New York's transactional approach to res judicata, "once a claim isbrought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series oftransactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy"(O'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]). Here, the plaintiffs areforeclosed by the doctrine of res judicata from maintaining the present action since all of theclaims asserted in the complaint were litigated or could have been litigated in a prior federalaction (see 4B's Realty 1530 CR39, LLC v Toscano, 2009 WL 702011, 2009 US DistLexis 20316 [ED NY 2009]). Further, although the plaintiff Angela Toscano was not a party tothe prior action, her interests were represented by Angelo Toscano, the losing party in the prioraction (see generally Matter of People vApplied Card Sys., Inc., 11 NY3d 105, 123 [2008], cert denied sub nom. CrossCountry Bank, Inc. v New York, 555 US —, 129 S Ct 999 [2009]; Buechel vBain, 97 NY2d 295, 304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]; Matter of JuanC. v Cortines, 89 NY2d 659, 667-668 [1997]). Additionally, further litigation between theparties as to whether the transfer of the subject property was fraudulently induced is foreclosedby the doctrine of collateral estoppel based on the issues resolved in the federal action (seegenerally Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d at 303). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properlygranted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination.Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.