From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Car Park Sys. of N.Y. Inc. v. Ull

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 5, 2017
154 A.D.3d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

10-05-2017

CAR PARK SYSTEMS OF NEW YORK INC., et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Richard ULL, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP, White Plains (Anna M. Plazza of counsel), for appellants. Moritt Hock & Hamroff LLP, Garden City (Robert S. Cohen of counsel), for Richard Ull, respondent. Rosenberg Calica & Birney LLP, Garden City (John S. Ciulla of counsel), for Jeffrey Ull, respondent. Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, New York (Donald L. Rosenthal of counsel), for Jennifer Ull, respondent.


DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP, White Plains (Anna M. Plazza of counsel), for appellants.

Moritt Hock & Hamroff LLP, Garden City (Robert S. Cohen of counsel), for Richard Ull, respondent.

Rosenberg Calica & Birney LLP, Garden City (John S. Ciulla of counsel), for Jeffrey Ull, respondent.

Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, New York (Donald L. Rosenthal of counsel), for Jennifer Ull, respondent.

The motion court correctly found that the order dismissing a prior complaint barred the instant complaint on the ground of res judicata, because the determination in the first action that plaintiffs could not demonstrate reasonable reliance to support their fraud claim was a determination on the merits (see Coutsodontis v. Peters, 39 A.D.3d 274, 275, 831 N.Y.S.2d 902 [1st Dept.2007] ). In addition, we find that dismissal of the conversion claim as time-barred in the prior action also barred the fraud claim in the instant action (see Marinelli Assoc. v. Helmsley–Noyes Co., 265 A.D.2d 1, 705 N.Y.S.2d 571 [1st Dept.2000] ). The fraud claim is merely incidental to the conversion claim, as the gravamen of the wrong is the alleged diversion of funds (see Powers Mercantile Corp. v. Feinberg, 109 A.D.2d 117, 119–121, 490 N.Y.S.2d 190 [1st Dept.1985], affd. 67 N.Y.2d 981, 502 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 494 N.E.2d 106 [1986] ).We have considered plaintiffs' other contentions and find them unavailing.

ACOSTA, P.J., RENWICK, WEBBER, OING, MOULTON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Car Park Sys. of N.Y. Inc. v. Ull

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 5, 2017
154 A.D.3d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Car Park Sys. of N.Y. Inc. v. Ull

Case Details

Full title:CAR PARK SYSTEMS OF NEW YORK INC., et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 5, 2017

Citations

154 A.D.3d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
60 N.Y.S.3d 825

Citing Cases

Rachunow v. Jamieson

A fraud claim "is merely incidental to the conversion claim" if the "gravamen of the wrong is the alleged…

Lyman v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Thus, the cause of action for breach of bailment contract is not time-barred. Plaintiff's claim for fraud was…