90 A.D.3d 577 934 N.Y.S.2d 805

Naghib Sumar, Respondent, v Barry Fox et al., Appellants.

[934 NYS2d 805]

Plaintiff commenced a prior action involving identical parties and causes of action. Defendants moved to dismiss the prior action for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion, which was granted “on default,” with no indication that dismissal was on the merits or with prejudice. Under the circumstances, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply (see Wynn v Security Mut. Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 1100, 1100 [2004]; Espinoza v Concordia Intl. Forwarding Corp., 32 AD3d 326, 328 [2006]; Boorman v Deutsch, 152 AD2d 48, 52 [1989], lv dismissed 76 NY2d 889 [1990]), and plaintiff was free to commence this action without having to contest the dismissal of the prior action (see Espinoza, 32 AD3d at 327).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions, and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Freedman, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 3124KU).]

Sumar v. Fox
90 A.D.3d 577 934 N.Y.S.2d 805

Case Details

Name
Sumar v. Fox
Decision Date
Dec 27, 2011
Citations

90 A.D.3d 577

934 N.Y.S.2d 805

Jurisdiction
New York

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!