Opinion · New York Court of Appeals

Strange v. Montefiore Hospital & Medical Center

59 N.Y.2d 737

Type
Opinion
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1983-05-10
Topic
bankruptcy

How later courts describe this case

  • giving res judicata effect to claims adjudicated through summary judgment and resulting in dismissal of complaint
  • “grant of summary judgment for insufficiency of proof” in malpractice claim suffices to show dismissal on the merits
  • “CPLR 5013 does not require that the prior judgment contain the precise words ‘on the merits’ in order to be given res judicata effect; it suffices that it appears from the judgment that the dismissal was on the merits.”
  • analyzing - 15 - language in context of summary judgment
  • “CPLR 5013 4 does not require that the prior judgment contain the precise words ‘on the 5 merits’ in order to be given res judicata effect; it suffices that it appears from the 6 judgment that the dismissal was on the merits.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Strange v. Montefiore Hospital & Medical Center. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
62 opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

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

As we wrote in Barrett v Kasco Constr. Co. (56 NY2d 830, 831), procedurally indistinguishable from the case now before us, “although the prior judgment of Supreme Court *739 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).” CPLR 5013 does not require that the prior judgment contain the precise words “on the merits” in order to be given res judicata effect; it suffices that it appears from the judgment that the dismissal was on the merits. Indeed, one would not expect to find any such explicit recital in a judgment of dismissal based on a grant of summary judgment for insufficiency of proof, as occurred here.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Simons concur; Judge Fuchsberg taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.