Munroe v Park Ave S. Mgt.

Munroe v Park Ave S. Mgt. 2012 NY Slip Op 06630 Decided on October 4, 2012 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 October 4, 2012
Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, DeGrasse, Freedman, Román, JJ. 8190- 8191- Claim
307877/10 119343 8191A 119437

[*1]Lorraine Munroe, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Park Ave South Management, et al., Defendants-Respondents.



Lorraine Munroe, Claimant-Appellant,

v

The State of New York, Defendant-Respondent.




Lorraine Munroe, appellant pro se.
Heiberger & Associates, P.C., New York (Ricardo Vasquez of
counsel), for Park Ave South Management and 3053 Hull Ave
LLC, respondents.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Sudarsana
Srinivasan of counsel), for The State of New York, respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about June 14, 2011, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, and orders, Court of Claims of the State of New York (Alan C. Marin, J.), entered June 30, 2011, granting defendant's motions to dismiss the claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly determined that plaintiff's action, alleging that her landlord and its managing agent overcharged her and failed to provide repairs and services, is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel (see Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347 [1999]; Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 486 [1979]). Those claims were asserted as counterclaims in a nonpayment action and dismissed by the Housing Court, and plaintiff's new allegation of harassment by defendants should have been raised in the Housing Court.

The Court of Claims correctly determined that the claims against the Housing Court Judge and the Supreme Court Judge, based upon the aforementioned proceedings, were barred by judicial immunity. Claimant did not assert that any of the judges' acts were performed in the clear absence of jurisdiction (see Murray v Brancato, 290 NY 52 [1943]; Rosenstein v State of [*2]New York, 37 AD3d 208 [1st Dept 2007]). In addition, the Court of Claims properly determined that the claim against the Housing Court Judge was untimely (see Court of Claims Act §§ 10[3], 11[a]; Byrne v State of New York, 104 AD2d 782 [1st Dept 1984], lv denied 64 NY2d 607 [1985]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 4, 2012

CLERK