RING v. ELIZABETH FOUNDATION FOR THE ARTS (2023)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered April 4, 2023, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and denied plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that plaintiff's claim for attorneys’ fees was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because defendants established that a prior 2021 enforcement judgment against them had preclusive effect (see generally Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Allianz Risk Transfer AG, 31 N.Y.3d 64, 73, 78, 73 N.Y.S.3d 472, 96 N.E.3d 737 [2018]).  Plaintiff was required to assert his claim for attorneys’ fees arising under the lease agreement at the time of the 2011 action against defendants for de facto merger, in which plaintiff sought to establish that defendants were successors-in-interest and thus responsible for the judgment debtor's debts arising from the 2002 default (see Helmsley v. Anderson Clayton & Co., 60 A.D.2d 808, 400 N.Y.S.2d 544 [1st Dept. 1978], lv denied 44 N.Y.2d 641, 404 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 376 N.E.2d 205 [1978]).  By attempting to do so in a separate action, plaintiff improperly split his claim, warranting dismissal of the complaint (see 930 Fifth Corp. v. King, 54 A.D.2d 636, 637, 387 N.Y.S.2d 621 [1st Dept. 1976], affd 42 N.Y.2d 886, 397 N.Y.S.2d 788, 366 N.E.2d 875 [1977]).

In view of the foregoing, we need not address the remaining arguments.