Case Name: NEW YORK CITY CAR ADVERTISING CO. v. GREENBERGER
Court: New York Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1914-12-24
Citations: 150 N.Y.S. 642
Docket Number: 
Parties: NEW YORK CITY CAR ADVERTISING CO. v. GREENBERGER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 150
Pages: 642–643

Head Matter:
NEW YORK CITY CAR ADVERTISING CO. v. GREENBERGER.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
December 24, 1914.)
1. Judgment (§ 596 )—RÉs Judicata—Issues Litigated.
A judgment for an installment under a contract is res judicata in a subsequent action for a subsequent installment.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Judgment, Cent. Dig. § 1111; Dec. Dig. § 596.*]
2. Judgment (§ 956*)—Res Judicata—Evidence.
Where there is doubt as to conclusiveness of a judgment pleaded in bar, testimony of the issues litigated is admissible.
[Ed. Note.*—For other' cases, see Judgment, Cent. Dig. §§ 1822-1825; Dec. Dig. § 956.*]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District.
Action by the New York City Car Advertising Company against Rosa Greenberger. From a judgment dismissing the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case, it appeals. Reversed, and judgment for plaintiff directed.
See, also, 142 N. Y. Supp. 226.
Argued December term, 1914, before GUY, BIJUR, and PAGE, JJ.
Einstein, Townsend & Guiterman, of New York City (S. G. Nissenson, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Philip I. Schick, of New York City, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
BIJUR, J.
It is perfectly evident that upon the question of defendant's liability on the contract sued on. a judgment recovered in a previous action for an earlier installment under the same contract was res judicata, even without further evidence as to the issues litigated on the previous trial. The testimony offered to that effect, though unnecessary, was perfectly competent, and, were there any doubt as to the conclusive character' of this judgment, it should have been admitted.
Judgment reversed, with costs, and judgment for plaintiff directed for the sum of $210 and interest from June 1, 1913, with appropriate costs in the court below, and appeal from order dismissed, without costs. All concur.