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.
Richard T. Vitarelle, Sr., appellant, v. Richard Vitarelle, Jr., etc., et al., respondents.
Submitted—October 25, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to impose a constructive trust, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Sweeney, J.), dated September 15, 2010, which granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties of all other claims arising out of the same transaction or out of the same or related facts, even if based upon a different theory involving materially different elements of proof. The rule applies not only to claims litigated but also to claims that could have been raised in the prior litigation” (Matter of City of New York v. Schmitt, 50 AD3d 1032, 1033 [citations omitted]; see Osborne v. Rossrock Fund II, L.P., 82 AD3d 727, 727–728; Shelley v. Silvestre, 66 AD3d 992, 993).
In a prior action, the plaintiff consented to the entry of a judgment in favor of the defendant Richard Vitarelle, Jr., and against him on his counterclaim for possession of the subject property (see Vitarelle v. Vitarelle, 65 AD3d 1035). “[A] judgment on consent is conclusive and has the same preclusive effect as a judgment after trial” (Silverman v. Leucadia, Inc., 156 A.D.2d 442, 443; see Prudential Lines v Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J., 91 A.D.2d 1, 3). The claims asserted in the instant complaint were raised or could have been raised in the prior action, which was disposed of on the merits. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see Cypress Hills Cemetery v. City of New York, 67 AD3d 853, 854; Shelley v. Silvestre, 66 AD3d at 993).
RIVERA, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, BELEN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
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: 2010–11934 (Index No. 50476 /09)
Decided: November 15, 2011
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)