Sumar v. Fox
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Plaintiff commenced a prior action involving identical parties and causes of action. Defendants moved to dismiss the prior action for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion, which was granted “on default,” with no indication that dismissal was on the merits or with prejudice. Under the circumstances, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply (see Wynn v Security Mut. Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 1100, 1100 [2004]; Espinoza v Concordia Intl. Forwarding Corp., 32 AD3d 326, 328 [2006]; Boorman v Deutsch, 152 AD2d 48, 52 [1989], lv dismissed 76 NY2d 889 [1990]), and plaintiff…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Boorman v. DeutschAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Espinoza v. Concordia International Forwarding Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Wynn v. Security Mutual InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hermina v. 2050 Valentine Ave., LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2026
- Hillman v. KhedarooAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2026