Opinion
8560 Index 153977/16
02-28-2019
EMIC CORP. Formerly Known as Apple Mortgage Corp., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Richard BARENBLATT, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Berger & Webb, LLP, New York (Jonathan Rogin of counsel), for appellant. Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP, New York (Richard C. Schoenstein of counsel), for respondents.
Berger & Webb, LLP, New York (Jonathan Rogin of counsel), for appellant.
Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP, New York (Richard C. Schoenstein of counsel), for respondents.
Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Oing, JJ.
Neither claim preclusion nor issue preclusion bars this state court action. Claim preclusion does not apply because the federal court judgment was not on the merits (see Landau, P.C. v. LaRossa, Mitchell & Ross, 11 N.Y.3d 8, 13, 862 N.Y.S.2d 316, 892 N.E.2d 380 [2008] ), and issue preclusion does not apply because the issues were not identical (see Jeffreys v. Griffin, 1 N.Y.3d 34, 39, 769 N.Y.S.2d 184, 801 N.E.2d 404 [2003] ). To the extent that the motion court found that the amendment to the purchase agreement did not cure plaintiff's lack of standing, the court should not have raised that issue sua sponte (see Andron v. City of New York, 117 A.D.3d 526, 527, 985 N.Y.S.2d 545 [1st Dept. 2014] ; Greene v. Davidson, 210 A.D.2d 108, 109, 620 N.Y.S.2d 48 [1st Dept. 1994], lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 806, 627 N.Y.S.2d 323, 650 N.E.2d 1325 [1995] ).