Toscano v. 4B's Realty VIII Southampton Brick & Tile, 84 A.D.3d 780 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
Toscano v. 4B's Realty VIII Southampton Brick & Tile, 84 A.D.3d 780 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kassenoff v. Kasenoff
S.D.N.Y. · 2023 · confidence medium
Feb. 29, 2016) (same); Toscano v. 4B’s Realty VIII, 921 N.Y.S.2d 882, 883 (App. Div. 2011) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Miriam Kaller Family Irrevocable Trust ex rel. Freund v. Lincoln Benefit Life Co.
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2017 · confidence medium
State, 90 AD3d 716 [2011], appeal dismissed 18 NY3d 920 [2012]; reconsideration denied, motion for stay dismissed 19 NY3d 875 [2012]; Toscano v 4B’s Realty VIII Southampton Brick & Tile, LLC, 84 AD3d 780, 781 [2011]; Matter of Frontier Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Blue Sky, LLC v. Jerry's Self Storage, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
As the acts allegedly undertaken by Klein and Magee through Jerry’s were already litigated to conclusion in the first action, res judicata bars relitigation of those same matters in this action as against Jerry’s (see Toscano v 4B’s Realty VIII Southampton Brick & Tile, LLC, 84 AD3d 780, 780-781 [2011]; see also O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d at 357 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Logan v. Matveevskii
S.D.N.Y. · 2016 · confidence medium
Feb. 29, 2016) (same); Toscano v. 4B’s Realty VIII, 84 A.D.3d 780 , 921 N.Y.S.2d 882, 883 (2011) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hoffer v. Bank of America, N.A.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
The plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the order as granted the Bank’s motion to dismiss the complaint and denied that branch of their cross motion which was for relief pursuant to CPLR 5222 (c). “ ‘[T]he general doctrine of res judicata gives binding effect to the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and prevents the parties to an action, and those in privity with them, from subsequently relitigating any questions that were necessarily decided therein’ ” (Toscano v 4B’s Realty VIII Southampton Brick & Tile, LLC, 84 AD3d 780, 780 [2011], quoting …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pondview Corp. v. Blatt
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Co., 90 AD3d 990, 991 [2011]; Uffer v Travelers Cos., Inc., 88 AD3d 690, 691 [2011]; Toscano v 4B’s Realty VIII Southampton Brick & Tile, LLC, 84 AD3d 780, 780 [2011]).
discussed Cited "see" Serio v. Town of Islip
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
“ ‘[T]he general doctrine of res judicata gives binding effect to the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and prevents the parties to an action, and those in privity with them, from subsequently re-litigating any questions that were necessarily decided therein’ ” (Landau, P.C. v LaRossa, Mitchell & Ross, 11 NY3d 8, 13 [2008], quoting Matter of Grainger [Shea Enters.], 309 NY 605, 616 [1956]; see Toscano v 4B’s Realty VIII Southampton Brick & Tile, LLC, 84 AD3d 780 [2011]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Angelo Toscano
v.
4B's Realty VIII Southampton Brick & Tile, LLC
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 3, 2011.
84 A.D.3d 780
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

In an action to quiet title to real property pursuant to RPAPL article 15 and to recover damages for fraud, unjust enrichment, and conversion, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), dated April 9, 2010, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“ ‘[T]he general doctrine of res judicata gives binding effect to the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and prevents the parties to an action, and those in privity with them, from subsequently relitigating any questions that were necessarily decided therein’ ” (Landau, P.C. v LaRossa, Mitchell & Ross, 11 NY3d 8, 13 [2008], quoting Matter of Grainger [Shea Enters.], 309 NY 605, 616 [1956]). Under New York’s transactional approach to res judicata, “once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy” (O’Brien v [*781] City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]). Here, the plaintiffs are foreclosed by the doctrine of res judicata from maintaining the present action since all of the claims asserted in the complaint were litigated or could have been litigated in a prior federal action (see 4B’s Realty 1530 CR39, LLC v Toscano, 2009 WL 702011, 2009 US Dist Lexis 20316 [ED NY 2009]). Further, although the plaintiff Angela Toscano was not a party to the prior action, her interests were represented by Angelo Toscano, the losing party in the prior action (see generally Matter of People v Applied Card Sys., Inc., 11 NY3d 105, 123 [2008], cert denied sub nom. Cross Country Bank, Inc. v New York, 555 US —, 129 S Ct 999 [2009]; Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]; Matter of Juan C. v Cortines, 89 NY2d 659, 667-668 [1997]). Additionally, further litigation between the parties as to whether the transfer of the subject property was fraudulently induced is foreclosed by the doctrine of collateral estoppel based on the issues resolved in the federal action (see generally Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d at 303). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination. Rivera, J.E, Dickerson, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.