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.
AVCO SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., respondent, v. Linda T. BEIGEL, appellant.
In an action to recover damages for conversion, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), dated June 27, 2005, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The plaintiff, Avco Security Systems, Inc. (hereinafter Avco), commenced this action against the defendant, Linda T. Beigel, alleging that she converted various property belonging to it. The president, sole shareholder, and sole director of Avco is Linda's former husband, Larry Beigel. The two divorced in an acrimonious action that was resolved by a stipulation of settlement entered into in open court. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the action was barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel arising from the stipulation of settlement in the matrimonial action. In support of her motion, the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that the issue of the ownership and possession of all of the property at issue herein (which was potentially marital property subject to equitable distribution) was actually litigated and resolved in the matrimonial action (see Xiao Yang Chen v. Fischer, 6 N.Y.3d 94, 100-101, 810 N.Y.S.2d 96, 843 N.E.2d 723; Watts v. Swiss Bank Corp., 27 N.Y.2d 270, 277, 317 N.Y.S.2d 315, 265 N.E.2d 739; Luscher v. Arrua, 21 A.D.3d 1005, 1006-1007, 801 N.Y.S.2d 379; Matter of State of New York v. Seaport Manor A.C.F., 19 A.D.3d 609, 797 N.Y.S.2d 538; Morse v. Morse, 12 A.D.3d 425, 784 N.Y.S.2d 590), and that Avco shall be bound by the determination therein (see Matter of Shea, 309 N.Y. 605, 132 N.E.2d 864; Shire Realty Corp. v. Schorr, 55 A.D.2d 356, 360-361, 390 N.Y.S.2d 622). In opposition, Avco failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the defendant's motion should have been granted.
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.
Decided: May 23, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)