From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hyman v. Hillelson

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 17, 1981
55 N.Y.2d 624 (N.Y. 1981)

Opinion

Argued October 19, 1981

Decided November 17, 1981

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, CARROL S. WALSH, J.

Lydon F. Maider and Robert L. Maider for appellants.

Ernest Abdella and George Abdella for respondents.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The factual context in which this case arises is set forth in the memorandum at the Appellate Division ( 79 A.D.2d 725). When in 1974 plaintiffs unsuccessfully brought an action against the present defendants (and others) asserting claims to ownership of the property in Fulton County, they then predicated their right to recovery on the equitable remedy of contract reformation. When they thereafter instituted the present action in 1979 asserting a right to a substantial portion of the same property they grounded their claim on the theory of adverse possession, expressly recited to have commenced in and continued since 1955. As the Appellate Division correctly noted, this theory of recovery with respect to this property against these defendants was available to plaintiffs when they brought their 1974 action. Accordingly, it is now barred under recognized principles of claim preclusion (Matter of Reilly v Reid, 45 N.Y.2d 24; Restatement, Judgments 2d [Tent Draft No. 5, 1978], §§ 61, 61.1).

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Hyman v. Hillelson

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 17, 1981
55 N.Y.2d 624 (N.Y. 1981)
Case details for

Hyman v. Hillelson

Case Details

Full title:MORRIS A. HYMAN et al., Appellants, v. JANET C. HILLELSON et al.…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 17, 1981

Citations

55 N.Y.2d 624 (N.Y. 1981)
446 N.Y.S.2d 251
430 N.E.2d 1304

Citing Cases

Wendel v. Goldberg, Scudieri, Block, P.C.

Defendants also argue that the Complaint lacks merit, the documentary evidence supports dismissal of the…

Suponya v. Demarillac

Discussion Res judicata, or claim preclusion, is invoked when parties seek to relitigate entire causes of…