Opinion
Argued May 15, 2000
August 30, 2000.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated December 9, 1998, which granted the motion of the defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation for leave to amend its answer to assert the affirmative defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it based on those defenses, and (2) an order of the same court, dated August 10, 1999, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendant City of New York which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it as abandoned.
Stephen H. Weiner, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Julian L. Kalkstein of counsel), for respondents.
SONDRA MILLER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, HOWARD MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated August 10, 1999, is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated December 9, 1998, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.
The defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (hereinafter HHC) terminated its contract with the plaintiff Blandford Land Clearing Corp. (hereinafter Blandford) to perform construction at the Long Term Care Facility of the Kings County Hospital Center on the ground that Blandford had made material misrepresentations to obtain the contract. Blandford commenced a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review HHC's determination, and the Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding. Blandford then commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract.
Under the circumstances of this case, Blandford is barred by the doctrine of res judicata from recovering damages for breach of contract (see, Matter of Reilly v. Reid, 45 N.Y.2d 24; LaDuke v. Lyons, 250 A.D.2d 969). Moreover, Blanford is collaterally estopped from recovering its cost of performing work at the Long Term Care Facility site (see, Honess 52 Corp. v. Town of Fishkill, 266 A.D.2d 510; Dlugash v. South Nassau Communities Hosp., 138 A.D.2d 343; Jered Contr. Corp. v. New York City Tr. Auth., 22 N.Y.2d 187; B.T. Skating Corp. v. County of Nassau, 204 A.D.2d 586).
Since the affirmative defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel asserted by HHC have merit, and Blandford's assertion of prejudice is without merit, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion of HHC for leave to amend its answer to assert these defenses and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see, Scialdone v. Shah, 197 A.D.2d 567).
Blandford failed to raise any issue concerning the City of New York. Accordingly, the appeal as to the City is dismissed as abandoned.