Dupps v Bank of New York

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Dupps v Bank of New York 2012 NY Slip Op 31745(U) June 22, 2012 Sup Ct, Nassau County Docket Number: 151/12 Judge: Antonio I. Brandveen Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK Present: ANTONIO I. BRANDVEEN J. S. C. TRI / IAS PART 29 KRSTINA DUPPS and MICHAEL OSTROWSKI NASSAU COUNTY Index No. 151/12 Plaintiff against - Motion Sequence No. 001 002 BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS CWABS INC. ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES , SERIES 2006(BNY MELLON NA), Defendant. The following papers having been read on this motion: Notice of Motion , Affidavits , & Exhibits Answering Affidavits. . . . . . . . Replying Affidavits Briefs: Plaintiffs / Petitioner s. . Defendant's / Respondent' 1. 2 s. The defendant moves , in motion sequence #1 , pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the plaintiffs ' complaint , and to cancel the notice of pendency fied on January 31 2012. The plaintiffs ' claims relate to an August 6 , 2008 judgment of foreclosure and sale where the defendant acquired title to the propert by an October 21 2008 referee s deed. The defendant commenced an summary holdover proceeding in Nassau County District Court which was resolved by a March 3 , 2010 stipulation of settlement, including vacating the premises and waiving any right to seek further stay of eviction. The District Court denied the plaintiffs ' subsequent motion to vacate the judgment of possession and warrant [* 2] of eviction , and the plaintiffs commenced the underlying plenary action. The plaintiffs oppose this motion , and request the Court vacate the August 6 , 2008 judgment of foreclosure and sale. The plaintiffs seek discovery from the defendants. The plaintiffs move , in motion sequence #2 , to vacate the August 6 , 2008 judgment of foreclosure and sale. The plaintiffs question the proceedings and the standing of the defendant. . The defendant opposes the motion. The defense points to a March 8, 2011 court order dismissing the plaintiffs ' claims against Countryide Home Loans , Inc. , and the order of the Appellate Division , 2d Department extending the plaintiffs ' time to Apri118, 2012 to fie replacement appellate papers regarding the dismissal of the claims against the plaintiff. The defense also points at the March 3, 2010 stipulation of settlement where the plaintiffs agreed to vacate the premises by June 3 , 2010 , and the March 2 2012 decision of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court which found one of the plaintiffs defaulted in the holdover proceeding. The defense further points to the January 5 , 2012 District Court order denying any further stay of the warrant of eviction , and the February 28 2012 decision of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court which denied any stay pending appeal of the that January 5 , 2012 District Court order. A stipulation of settlement, which discontinues a claim with prejudice , is see React Servo v Rindos 243 AD2d Dolitsky s Dry Cleaners v Y L Jericho Dry Cleaners 203 AD2d 322 (1994)). Under the transactional approach to res judicata issues once a claim is brought to a final conclusion , all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy (O' Brien v City of Syracuse , 54 NY2d 353 357 (1981)). Moreover , the doctrine of res judicata not only applies to the parties of record in the prior action , or administrative subject to the doctrine of res judicata 550 (1997); Page 2 of 5 [* 3] (see Watts v Swiss Bank proceeding, but also to those in privity with them Bay Shore Family Partners v Foundation Jewish Philanthropies of Jewish Fedn. of Greater Fort Lauderdale , 270 Matter of Home of Histadruth Ivrith v State of Facilities Dev. Corp. 114 AD2d 200 (1986)) Matter of State of New York v Seaport Manor A. CF. 19 A. D.3d 609 610. Corp. 27 NY2d 270 (1970); N. AD2d 374 (2000); (A) valid final judgment bars future actions between the same parties on the (Matter of same cause of action (see, e.g. 50 CJS , Judgments Reily v Reid 45 NY2d 24 , 27), whether the judgment was a primary claim or (see, EI Sawah v Penfield Mechanical Contrs. Corp. , 119 AD2d 980). Under New York' s transactional analysis approach to res judicata, " once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims ... are barred , even if based upon different (legal) theories or if seeking a different see, Boronow v remedy (O' Brien v City of Syracuse 54 NY2d 353 Feigen v Advance Capital Mgt. Corp. , 146 Boronow 71 NY2d 284 Israel v Kaye Assocs. 145 AD2d 467 , 468). Also , a AD2d 556 judgment rendered with respect to a defense bars any counterclaims arising 598)" a counterclaim , 357; 288; , 558; Co. v (see, Modell out of the same transaction or series of transactions Deacons of Ref Proto Dutch Church 68 NY2d 456 461). In regard to issue preclusion or collateral estoppel , a par and those in privity with him are precluded from relitigating issues previously resolved against the par where the issue in the prior action is identical and where the part against whom the estoppel is sought has been afforded a full and fair (see, Liss v Trans Auto Sys. 68 NY2d 15, opportnity to Richard 46 NY2d 481 22; Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v L. vArmon 144 AD2d 1 3). Furthermore , a judgment on consent is Minister, Elders contest the decision Lopez, , 485; (see, conclusive and has the same preclusive effect as a judgment after trial Prudential Lines v Firemen s Ins. Co. 91 AD2d 1). A default judgment is (see, Rizzo v Ippolito , 137 similarly conclusive for res judicata purposes 1: Corp. 65 AD2d 683) Rosset Corp. v Blimpy ofN. AD2d 511 513; 119 Silverman v Leucadia, Inc. 156 A. 2d 442 443- 444. The Court determines the defendant meets its burden under CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the plaintiffs ' complaint , and to cancel the notice of pendency fied on January 31 2012. The plaintiffs ' claims relate to the August 6 2008 default judgment of foreclosure 2008 referee and sale where the defendant acquired title to the propert by an October 21 deed , and subsequent litigation for the possession interest (see Silverman V. Leucadia, Inc. 156 A. supra). The Court finds the plaintiffs ' claims were brought to a final Page 3 of 5 [* 4] res judicata (see State of New York v. conclusion , and that final judgment is entitled to Seaport Manor A. CF. 19 A. D.3rd 609). In opposition to the defendant' s application , the plaintiffs fail to proffer any proof otherwise. Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4), a court has broad discretion in determining whether an action should be dismissed on the ground that there is another (see Matter of Janet L. , 200 57 NY2d 731 Barringer v Zgoda 91 AD2d 811 (1982); 6 AD2d 801 3211.18). A court may dismiss an Weinstein- Kom- Miler action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4) where there is a substantial identity of (see Montalvo v Air Dock Sys. 37 AD3d 567 Indem. (2007); Certain Underwriters at Lloyd' s, London v action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action , 732 (1982); Whitney v Whitney, , 803 (1994); , NY Civ Prac the parties and causes of action Hartford Ace. Co. 16 AD3d 167 (2005); Lopez v Shaughnessy, 260 AD2d 551 (1999); Proietto v Donohue 189 AD2d 807 (1993)). It is not necessary that the precise legal theories presented in the first action also be presented in the (see Matter of Schaller v Vacco 241 AD2d 663 (1997)); rather , it is sufficient if the two actions are " sufficiently similar (Montalvo v Air Dock Sys. 37 AD3d at 567) and that the relief sought is " the same or substantially the same (Liebert v TIAA- CREF 34 AD3d 756 , 757 (2006); see White Light Prods. v On The Scene Prods. 231 AD2d 90 (1997)). The critical element is that" ' both suits arise out of the same subject matter or series of alleged wrongs (White Light Prods. v On The Scene Prods. , 231 AD2d at 94 quoting Kent Dev. Co. v Liccione 37 NY2d 899 , 901 (1975); see JC Mfg. v NPIElec. 178 AD2d 505 (1991)) Assoc. v Midollo 67 A. 3d 622. The defendant points out this action should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR second action Cherico, Cherico 3211(a)(4) because the plaintiffs are prosecuting the same claim against it in another action presently on appeal with the Appellate Division , 2d Departent. This Court determines there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action. The Court finds the defendant meets its burden under CPLR 3211(a)(4) to dismiss the underlying action by showing there are issues raised and relief sought by the plaintiffs here which are substantially the same as the issues raised and relief sought in the pending action. In opposition , the plaintiffs fail to proffer any proof otherwise. Page 4 of 5 [* 5] A judgment of foreclosure and sale entered against a defendant is final as to all questions at issue between the parties , and concludes all matters of defense which were or might have been litigated in the foreclosure action (Long Is. Save Bank V. Mihalios , 269 2d 502 , 503 , 704 N. 2d 483)" (Signature Bank V. Epstein 95 A. 3d 1199). In an analogous matter , the Second Department held: The Supreme Court also properly denied those branches of the defendant' motion which were to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), since he failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his Assoc. V. Gritsipis 87 A. D.3d 216 927 2d 349), and pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3), since he failed to establish that the plaintiff procured the judgment of foreclosure and sale by fraud (see Midfirst Bank V. AI-Rahman misrepresentation Tribeca Lending Corp. V. Crawford 3d 797 , 917 N. 2d 116) D.3d 1018 916 N. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Hornes 94 A. D.3d 755. default (see Stephan B. Gleich , or other misconduct 2d 871; This Court determines the plaintiffs lack a reasonable excuse for their failure to timely appear and fail to show a meritorious defense regarding the judgment of foreclosure and sale (see CPLR 5015). Accordingly, the defense motion is granted , and the plaintiffs ' motion is denied. So ordered. Dated: June 22, 2012 ENTER: 1. S. ENTERED FINAL DISPOSITION JUN 25 2012 Page 5 of 5 NASSAU COUNTY COUNTY CLERK' S OFFICE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.