Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Blank v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 10, 1986Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Mahoney, P. J., and Casey, J.,

concur in part and dissent in part in a memorandum by Casey, J. Casey, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). We disagree with so much of the majority’s holding as affirms Special Term’s dismissal of Leo Blank’s complaint against Irv-Mil. Based upon the majority’s conclusion that the dismissal of Leo’s complaint in the prior action was without prejudice, it necessarily follows that the order cannot be given res judicata effect in this action (see, City of New York v Caristo Constr. Corp., 62 NY2d 819; Miller Mfg. Co. v Zeiler, 45 NY2d 956; Iacono v Japan…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Miller Manufacturing Co. v. ZeilerNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
  2. City of New York v. Caristo Construction Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1984
  3. Iacono v. Ltd.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API