Lombaro v Martin

[*1] Lombaro v Martin 2017 NY Slip Op 51920(U) Decided on December 27, 2017 Justice Court Of The Town Of Red Hook Triebwasser, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 27, 2017
Justice Court of the Town of Red Hook

Jacqueline Lombaro a/k/a JACQUELINE MARTIN, Petitioner,

against

Henri Martin, Respondent.



C-482-17



Petitioner is represented by Glen P. Malia, Esq., Peekskill, New York. Respondent is represented by Jeffrey Rothschild, Esq., of Cappillino and Rothschild, Esqs., Pawling, New York.
Jonah Triebwasser, J.

This proceeding, brought by petition dated August 25, 2017, pursuant to section 711 of the Real Property Actions and Proceeding Law (RPAPL), seeks to have Respondent evicted from premises at 129 Orlich Road in the Town of Red Hook, Dutchess County, State of New York. Respondent filed an answer on September 27, 2017 raising the affirmative defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel referencing this Court's decision of October 17, 2016, Martin v. Martin, 53 Misc 3d 1014 (2016).

Respondent further avers as affirmative defenses that he has rights to the tenancy though his familial relationship to the his late wife who was petitioner's mother and a life tenant of the premises. Finally, Respondent make a counterclaim in the amount of $3,000.00, alleging harassment and abuse of process.

Respondent filed a Memorandum of Law dated October 11, 2017 in support of his contention that the instant proceedings are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Respondent did not address his arguments regarding collateral estoppel or the counterclaim.

Petitioner filed her memorandum of law on October 26, 2017, maintaining that res judicata does not apply here as the only issue raised in the earlier proceeding was whether or not Respondent was a tenant of the life tenant, and that the new issue to be addressed here is whether or not Respondent is a tenant at will or a licencee of Petitioner and, therefore, subject to possible eviction in this matter.

Respondent filed a reply memorandum of law dated November 2, 2017 and received by this Court on November 30, 2017, taking the stance that Petitioner can not relitigate this claim due to the identity of parties, issues and forum, and that - even if the issues were not identical - she can not now litigate new issues that could and should have been aired in the first proceeding.

As neither party requested oral argument, this matter was marked fully submitted on November 30, 2017.

Petitioner is represented by Glen P. Malia, Esq., Peekskill, New York. Respondent is represented by Jeffrey Rothschild, Esq., of Cappillino and Rothschild, Esqs., Pawling, New York.

This Matter is Barred by the Doctrine of Res Judicata

Our State's highest court, the Court of Appeals, was clear and unambiguous when it held in Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260 (2005):

Under the doctrine of res judicata, a party may not litigate a claim where a judgment on the merits exists from a prior action between the same parties involving the same subject matter. The rule applies not only to claims actually litigated but also to claims that could have been raised in the prior litigation. The rationale underlying this principle is that a party who has been given a full and fair opportunity to litigate a claim should not be allowed to do so again (see O'Connell v Corcoran, 1 NY3d 179, 184-185 [2003]; Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 485 [1979]). Additionally, under New York's transactional analysis approach to res judicata, "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], citing Matter of Reilly v Reid, 45 NY2d 24, 29-30 [1978]). "Res judicata is designed to provide finality in the resolution of disputes," recognizing that "[c]onsiderations of judicial economy as well as fairness to the parties mandate, at some point, an end to litigation" (Reilly, 45 NY2d at 28).

In the case at Bar, as well as in the earlier litigation before this Court, the parties were the same and the object of the litigation was the same, namely the eviction of Respondent from the subject premises. Even a cursory examination of the Real Property Law and the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law should have revealed to Petitioner that she had alterative theories under which to proceed bedsides seeking to label the Respondent a tenant of the life tenant. She could have also sought relief under the theories that Respondent was a tenant at will or a tenant at sufferance. Having failed to do so in 2016, she is now barred from doing so in 2017 by res judicata as interpreted by the Court of Appeals in Hunter.

Therefore, the Court hereby dismisses the petition herein, without prejudice to bring an action of ejectment in the New York State Supreme Court. Having determined that this matter is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, there is no need for the Court to reach the other affirmative defenses. Counsel are to appear before me on Thursday, January 18, 2018 to pick a trial date on the counterclaim.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 27, 2017

Red Hook, New York

__________________________________________

JONAH TRIEBWASSER,

Justice, Town of Red Hook