You are here: / / A DISMISSAL BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR TO OPPOSE A...

A DISMISSAL BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR TO OPPOSE A MOTION TO DISMISS IS NOT A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE HAS NO RES JUDICATA EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the prior dismissal of plaintiff’s action because the plaintiff failed to appear in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss was not a determination on the merits and therefore has no res judicata effect:

The plaintiff had commenced a prior action against, among others, the defendants, and the complaint in that action was dismissed insofar as asserted against them upon the plaintiff’s failure to appear in opposition to their motion to dismiss. An order entered upon a party’s default in appearing to oppose a motion to dismiss is not a determination on the merits … . Where a dismissal does not involve a determination on the merits, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply … . Accordingly, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to bar the instant action … . Abdelfattah v Najar, 2019 NY Slip Op 04346, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

You might also like
THE ORDER OF FACT-FINDING IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE STREET STOP WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION; AND THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO PARTICIPATE IN LITIGATION REGARDING THEIR PARENTS’ PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT; THEREFORE THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE A MOTION CONCERNING THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).
FORECLOSURE ACTION ABANDONED, BANK FAILED TO INITIATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHIN ONE YEAR (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS NOT READY FOR TRIAL AND REFUSING TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A ‘SUBSTITUTE EXPERT,’ DISMISSAL WAS NOT ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE THE DISMISSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ‘WITH PREJUDICE,’ ALTHOUGH NO APPEAL LIES FROM A JUDGMENT ENTERED UPON DEFAULT, THE UNDERLYING ISSUES MAY BE REVIEWED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN INADEQUATELY PROTECTED HOLE IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING WHEN HE (APPARENTLY) WAS DOING WORK ON BEHALF OF HIS EMPLOYER, APPARENTLY A TENANT IN THE BUILDING; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER; BUT PLAINTIFF PRESENTED NO PROOF HIS EMPLOYER HAD ASSUMED THE DUTIES OF AN AGENT OF THE OWNER FOR SUPERVISION OF HIS WORK, THEREFORE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION AGAINST THE EMPLOYER WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DEFICIENT; THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE BANK’S AFFIDAVIT RENDERED THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER AUTOMOBILE LIFT WAS INTENDED TO BE USED WITHOUT A PROTECTIVE DEVICE AND WHETHER WARNINGS WERE ADEQUATE.
Plaintiff Unable to Identify Cause of Fall

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MODIFIED A SO-ORDERED STIPULATION ENTERED BETWEEN... INHERITED PROPERTY WHICH HAD BEEN COMMINGLED WITH MARITAL PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE...