Barrett v. Kasco Constr. Co., Inc., 438 N.E.2d 99 (N.Y. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Barrett v. Kasco Constr. Co., Inc., 438 N.E.2d 99 (N.Y. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1984 · …although the prior judgment does not specifically recite that it is 'on the merits', that judgment should be given res judicata effect in order to prevent the plaintiff from circumventing the preclusion decree ≈ altered
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …deem the defendant's answer amended to include the affirmative defense . . . on the motion for summary judgment ≈ altered
60 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Panagiotou v. Samaritan Village, Inc. (nyappdiv, 2011-10-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Panagiotou v. Samaritan Village, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Co., 56 NY2d 830, 831 [1982]; Callaghan v Curtis, 82 AD3d 816, 817 [2011]; Methal v City of New York, 50 AD3d 654, 656 [2008]; Yates v Roco Co., 48 AD3d 800 [2008]; Kalinka v Saint Francis Hosp., 34 AD3d 742, 744 [2006]; Tejeda v 750 Gerard Props.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Brooklyn Law School v. Raybon, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 1991 · confidence medium
Co., 56 NY2d 830, 831 [1982]).
discussed Cited "see" Strange v. Montefiore Hospital & Medical Center
N.Y. App. Div. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
In holding that a dismissal of a complaint on the basis of a preclusion order is not entitled to res judicata effect in the absence of a specification that the dismissal is “on the merits” (Iacono v Japan Lines, 89 AD2d 948 ; see Valenti v Cabrini Health Care Center, 89 AD2d 1066 ), we were unaware oí Barrett (supra), which was only recently decided and not called to our attention.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
George Barrett, as Administrator of the Estate of Camille Barrett, Deceased, Et Al., Appellants,
v.
Kasco Construction Co., Inc., Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
Jun 8, 1982.
438 N.E.2d 99
1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3461
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Andrew M. Harrison and Morris J. Eisen for appellants., Leo Rothbard for respondent.
Cited by 46 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [b]), order affirmed, with costs. We cannot say, as a matter of law, that the Appellate Division abused its discretion by deeming defendant’s answer amended to include the affirmative defense of res judicata on a motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, although the prior judgment of Supreme Court does not specifically recite that it is “on the merits”, that judgment should be given res judicata effect in order to prevent the plaintiff from circumventing the preclusion decree (cf. Palmer v Fox, 28 AD2d 968, affd 22 NY2d 667).

[*832] Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.