| Pondview Corp. v Blatt |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03618 [95 AD3d 980] |
| May 8, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Pondview Corp. et al., Appellants, v Andrew Blatt,Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Eleanor Blatt, Deceased, et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Montalbano, Condon & Frank, P.C., New City, N.Y. (Richard H. Sarajian of counsel), forrespondents Andrew Blatt, individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of EleanorBlatt, and Tappan Zee Senior Management Corp. Feerick Lynch MacCartney PLLC, South Nyack, N.Y. (Donald J. Feerick and Christopher J.Walsh of counsel), for respondents Russand, Inc., Estate of Ann Iser, individually and asPersonal Representative of the Estate of William Iser, and Lynn Iser and Stephen Iser,individually and as Successor Personal Representatives of the Estate of William Iser, PersonalRepresentatives of the Estate of Ann Iser, and Trustees of the Trust Created Pursuant to Article"Fifth" of the Last Will and Testament of the William Iser for the Benefit of Ann Iser.
In an action, inter alia, to recover unpaid rent, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of theSupreme Court, Rockland County (Berliner, J.), dated August 26, 2010, which granted thosebranches of the separate motions of the defendants Russand, Inc., Estate of Ann Iser,individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of William Iser, and Lynn Iser andStephen Iser, individually, and as Successor Personal Representatives of the Estate of WilliamIser, Personal Representatives of the Estate of Ann Iser, and Trustees of the Trust CreatedPursuant to Article "Fifth" of the Last Will and Testament of the William Iser for the Benefit ofAnn Iser, and the defendants Andrew Blatt, individually, and as Personal Representative of theEstate of Eleanor Blatt, and Tappan Zee Senior Management Corp., which were to dismiss thecomplaint insofar as asserted against each of them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), based on thedoctrine of res judicata.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the defendants appearingseparately and filing separate briefs.
" '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' " (Matterof ADC Contr. & Constr., Inc. v Town of Southampton, 50 AD3d 1025, 1026 [2008],quoting Abraham v Hermitage Ins.Co., 47 AD3d 855, 855 [2008]; see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]; Grant v Aurora Loan Servs., 88 AD3d949, 949 [2011]; Town ofHuntington v [*2]Beechwood Carmen Bldg. Corp., 82 AD3d1203, 1206 [2011]; Barbieri vBridge Funding, 5 AD3d 414, 415 [2004]). "The fact that causes of action may be statedseparately, invoke different legal theories, or seek different relief will not permit relitigation ofclaims" (Matter of ADC Contr. & Constr., Inc. v Town of Southampton, 50 AD3d at1026; see Matter of Hodes v Axelrod, 70 NY2d 364, 372 [1987]; O'Brien v City ofSyracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]; Matter of Reilly v Reid, 45 NY2d 24 [1978];Grossman v New York Life Ins.Co., 90 AD3d 990, 991 [2011]; Uffer v Travelers Cos., Inc., 88 AD3d 690, 691 [2011]; Toscano v 4B's Realty VIII SouthamptonBrick & Tile, LLC, 84 AD3d 780, 780 [2011]).
Here, the claims asserted by the plaintiffs arose out of the same transaction or series oftransactions as those raised in a prior action commenced by the plaintiffs in 2003 (hereinafter the2003 action). Moreover, all of the claims asserted here either were raised or could have beenraised in the 2003 action. Accordingly, notwithstanding the fact that some relief sought in thisaction is different from that sought in the 2003 action, the Supreme Court properly granted thosebranches of the defendants' separate motions which were to dismiss the complaint insofar asasserted against each of them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), based on the doctrine of resjudicata.
In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions. Skelos,J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Leventhal, JJ., concur.