Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Aldo MAGLIOCHETTI, doing business as La Bruschetta Ristorante, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nicola DI BELLO and Concetta Di Bello, Defendants-Respondents.
In August 1993 plaintiff tenant and defendant landlords entered into a commercial lease agreement for a three-year period for real property and restaurant equipment located in East Rochester, and the lease was thereafter renewed through December 31, 1997. Plaintiff defaulted on his rent prior to the expiration of the lease and was evicted pursuant to an order of eviction issued by Town Court in November 1997. One year later, plaintiff commenced this action in Supreme Court seeking, inter alia, reimbursement for structural repairs that he made when defendants refused to make such repairs, and damages for unlawful eviction.
Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the court properly granted those parts of defendants' motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action “as barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel/res judicata,” as well as those parts of the second and fourth causes of action that are duplicative of the first cause of action. Defendants submitted evidence establishing that Town Court had previously made a valid determination on the merits in the eviction proceeding held in that court and decided the identical issues raised in the first cause of action and those parts of the second and fourth causes of action regarding structural repairs (cf. Parker v. Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 N.Y.2d 343, 347-349, 690 N.Y.S.2d 478, 712 N.E.2d 647), and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572). Also contrary to plaintiff's contention, the court properly granted that part of defendants' motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action, inasmuch as plaintiff failed to comply with the 60-day requirement in RPAPL 747(2).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 11, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)