Opinion
May 10, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.).
In Desert Palace v. Rozenbaum ( 192 A.D.2d 340, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 652), this Court decided that attachment of the subject bank account affords quasi in rem jurisdiction over the judgment debtor, and rejected the argument that the bank had any obligation to prevent the judgment debtor from staking money from the subject account on gambling. In the instant action, the issue is the precise allocation of interest in the account among the judgment debtor, whom this Court has held to have an interest in the account (supra) and two relatives who allegedly also have an interest in the same account. Accordingly, the two cases do not have the same "focus" (Richards v. Estate of Kaskel, 169 A.D.2d 111, 120, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 78 N.Y.2d 1042), and the prior action lacks the identity with the instant proceeding necessary to application of the doctrine of res judicata and collateral estoppel (see, Ryan v. New York Tel. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494, 500).
We have considered the respondent's remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.