From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mendez v. Airport Transmission

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 10, 2000
272 A.D.2d 987 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

May 10, 2000.

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Frazee, J. — Dismiss Pleading.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

Before: Green, J.P., Hayes, Wisner and Hurlbutt, JJ.


Memorandum:

Supreme Court properly granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel ( see, CPLR 3211[a][5]). After defendant demanded payment of storage charges in addition to the cost of repairing of his vehicle, plaintiff commenced a small claims action against defendant to recover damages in an amount equal to the value of the vehicle. The matter was referred to an arbitrator, who dismissed plaintiff's claim and awarded defendant $980.32 on its counterclaim. At plaintiff's request, there was a trial de novo in Rochester City Court. Following the trial, the court denied the claim and counterclaim on the merits. Defendant then dismantled the vehicle for scrap parts, and plaintiff commenced the present action for compensatory and punitive damages. The record establishes that the small claims action in which plaintiff fully participated finally resolved plaintiff's claim for damages ( see, D.C.I. Danaco Contrs. v. Associated Univs., 248 A.D.2d 663; Omara v. Polise, 163 Misc.2d 989; see also, Matter of Carp [Van Tassel], 234 A.D.2d 715, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 813).


Summaries of

Mendez v. Airport Transmission

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 10, 2000
272 A.D.2d 987 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Mendez v. Airport Transmission

Case Details

Full title:MORALES MENDEZ, APPELLANT, v. AIRPORT TRANSMISSION, INC., RESPONDENT

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: May 10, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 987 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
708 N.Y.S.2d 780

Citing Cases

Gore v. Mackie

Relying on UCCA 1808, plaintiffs now seek to recover the sum of $4,100 less the $3,000 at issue in the prior…