Gargiulo v. Oppenheim
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
opinion of the court
2Per curiam
We are asked upon this appeal to determine whether the plaintiffs’ claim against defendant Licht for the return of the sum of $112,000, predicated upon a claim of unjust enrichment, is barred by reason of the application of the doctrine of claim preclusion (res judicata), and, if it is not so barred, whether plaintiffs are entitled to recover upon such claim.
*485Hendway Associates, Inc. (hereinafter Hendway) and Waverly-M Associates, Inc. (hereinafter Waverly) are New York corporations, the shares of which were initially held as follows: one third by Sam Getz and Gary Joseph,…
3Cases cited11 opinions
- Lawrence v. . FoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Reilly v. ReidNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
- Ball v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Paramount Film Distributing Corp. v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1972
- Seaver v. . RansomNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by10 opinions
- In Re SlaterDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1996
- Gargiulo v. OppenheimNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Feeney v. LicariAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Romano v. Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Wendy v. SpectorAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.