Heath v Wojtowicz

Heath v Wojtowicz 2011 NY Slip Op 08276 Decided on November 17, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 17, 2011
Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Catterson, Richter, Román, JJ.
6066 40555/78

[*1]George Heath, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

John S. Wojtowicz, et al., Defendants. Warner Bros. Inc., Defendant-Respondent.




George Heath, appellant pro se.
Margolin & Pierce, LLP, New York (Philip Pierce of counsel),
for 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 AD2d 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 AD2d 22 [1995]), an injunction barring him from commencing new actions or proceedings seeking royalties from the film is warranted. [*2]

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.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 17, 2011

CLERK