Case Name: S.M. Pires et al., Plaintiffs, v. Frota Oceanica Brasileira, S. A., Appellant, and Galveston Wharves, Doing Business as Port of Galveston, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1997-06-24
Citations: 240 A.D.2d 324
Docket Number: 
Parties: S.M. Pires et al., Plaintiffs, v Frota Oceánica Brasileira, S. A., Appellant, and Galveston Wharves, Doing Business as Port of Galveston, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 240
Pages: 324–325

Head Matter:
S.M. Pires et al., Plaintiffs, v Frota Oceánica Brasileira, S. A., Appellant, and Galveston Wharves, Doing Business as Port of Galveston, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
[659 NYS2d 25]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered on or about April 5, 1996, which granted defendants-respondents' motion to vacate a judgment of same court and Justice entered on or about May 19, 1995 against them and in favor of defendant-appellant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Although in Pires v Frota Oceánica Brasileira (214 AD2d 306) we held that plaintiffs' action against defendants-respondents herein was to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata, defendant-appellant argues that the earlier fact finding in the main action against defendants-respondents should be binding as to defendant-appellant's claim against them for indemnification on its liability to plaintiffs for maintenance and cure (see, Pires v Frota Oceánica Brasileira, 240 AD2d 323 [decided herewith]). The IAS Court properly rejected this contention in the present circumstances because the judgment in favor of plaintiffs was the basis for the judgment on the indemnification cross-claim (cf, Springer v Clark Publ. Co., 191 AD2d 922, lv dismissed 82 NY2d 706). Further, the trial court conceded it was mistaken as to the nature of defendant-appellant's stipulation with defendants-respondents and that that misunderstanding was incorporated into the resulting judgment, so as to warrant vacatur thereof (see, Graubard Molten Horowitz Pomeranz & Shapiro v 600 Third Ave. Assocs., 234 AD2d 49). We have considered defendant-appellant's remaining argument and find it to be without merit. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Williams and Tom, JJ.