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.
George Heath, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. John S. Wojtowicz, et al., Defendants. Warner Bros. Inc., Defendant–Respondent.
_
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered on or about July 19, 2011, which denied plaintiff's motion seeking reimbursement from defendant Warner Bros., Inc. pursuant to a settlement agreement with plaintiff's predecessor in interest, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to issue an order barring plaintiff from commencing any further actions or proceedings seeking to obtain royalties from the film “Dog Day Afternoon,” and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
The motion court properly denied plaintiff's motion seeking additional royalties from Warner Bros. Plaintiff's claim was previously litigated, it was determined that he is due 16 2/3% of the 1% of royalties owed to his predecessor, the late John S. Wojtowicz, and that determination was affirmed by this Court (72 AD3d 402 [2010], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 768 [2010] ). Accordingly, plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of res judicata from relitigating this claim (see Marinelli Assoc. v. Helmsley–Noyes Co., 265 A.D.2d 1, 5 [2000] ).
Furthermore, given plaintiff's pattern of continuous and vexatious litigation concerning this subject matter for the past few decades (see e.g. New York State Crime Victims Bd. v Abbott,
212 A.D.2d 22 [1995] ), an injunction barring him from commencing new actions or proceedings seeking royalties from the film is warranted.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: 6066
Decided: November 17, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)