Lieblich v Nahzi

Lieblich v Nahzi 2012 NY Slip Op 07214 Decided on October 25, 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 25, 2012
Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Richter, Román, JJ.
8401 110023/11

[*1]Gerald Lieblich, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v

Fron Nahzi, etc., Defendant-Respondent.




Zane and Rudofsky, New York (Edward S. Rudofsky of
counsel), for appellants.
Roy A. McKenzie, New York, for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered March 1, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs' present action, which seeks to recover money for expenses they claimed should have been deducted from the amount awarded to defendant in a prior action (Nahzi v Lieblich,
69 AD3d 427 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 703 [2010]), is barred by res judicata (see Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347 [1999]) and collateral estoppel (see Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 485 [1979]). In the prior litigation, plaintiffs had the opportunity to raise the issue of additional expenses that they allege should have been deducted from defendant's award of 25% of the proceeds from the sale of property owned by defendant corporation. The individual plaintiffs, who are shareholders of the corporate defendant, failed either to raise this issue or to do so in a procedurally
proper manner.

We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

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

ENTERED: OCTOBER 25, 2012

CLERK