Court Opinion

ID: 9916548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:09:46.171566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:33.925931
License: Public Domain

Sirleaf v Soel Lounge Inc.
               2023 NY Slip Op 34585(U)
                   December 14, 2023
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 521395/2021
                  Judge: Ingrid Joseph
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 12:28 PM                                                                INDEX NO. 521395/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

                                                                                      I/

                                                                              At
                                                                              At an IAS
                                                                                    lAS Part
                                                                                          Part 83 of
                                                                                                  of the
                                                                                                     the Supreme
                                                                                                         Supreme Court
                                                                                                                   Court of
                                                                                                                          of
                                                                              the State
                                                                                  State of
                                                                                        of New
                                                                                           New York
                                                                                                 York held
                                                                                                       held in and for the
                                                                              County
                                                                              County ofof Kings
                                                                                          Kings at 360
                                                                                                   360 Adams
                                                                                                        Adams Street,
                                                                                                                Street,
                                                                              Brooklyn, New
                                                                              Brooklyn,   New York,
                                                                                                York, on the -_     day of
                                                                                                                         of
                                                                               <l)cemner
                                                                              _q)cemher        2023.
                                                                                               2023.
           PRESENT:
           PRESENT: HON.   HON. INGRID
                                    INGRID JOSEPH,
                                                 JOSEPH, J.S.C.
                                                              J.S.C.
           SUPREME
           SUPREME COURT   COURT OF THE      THE STATE
                                                    STATE OF ·
           NEW
           NEW YORKYORK COUNTYCOUNTY OF KINGS     KINGS
           ---------------------------------    -------------------------------------X
           ----------------------------------------------------------------------J(                    Index
                                                                                                       Index No: 521395/2021
                                                                                                                 521395/2021
           AIDA
           AIDA A. SIRLEAF,
                        SIRLEAF,                                                                       Motion
                                                                                                       Motion Seq. 1-2
                                                             Plaintiff(s)
                                                             Plaintiff( s)
                                   -against-
                                   -against-
                                                                                                            ORDER
                                                                                                            ORDER
           SOEL
           SOEL LOUNGE
                    LOUNGE INC.    INC. D/B/A
                                          D/B/A EMBASSY
                                                    EMBASSY LOUNGE,  LOUNGE,
                                                             Defendant(
                                                             Defendant( s)
           -----------------------------        ----------------,-------------.-·X
           ----------------------------------------------------------------------J(
           The
           The following
                following e-filed
                           e-filed papers
                                   papers read
                                            read herein:
                                                 herein:                                                     NYSCEF Nos.:
                                                                                                             NYSCEFNos.:
           Notice
           Notice ofMotion/Affurnation
                   of Motion/Affirmation in Support/Affidavits
                                                Support/Affidavits Annexed
                                                                   Annexed
           Exhibits
           Exhibits Annexed/Reply
                     Annexed/Reply .......... .                                                              5-24;
                                                                                                             5-24; 44-46
                                                                                                                   44-46
           Affirmation
           Affirmation in Opposition/
                           Opposition! Affidavits
                                          Affidavits Annexed/Exhibits
                                                     AnnexedlExhibits Annexed
                                                                      Annexed ........... .                  30-35
                                                                                                             30-35
           Notice
           Notice ofMotion/Affurnation
                   of Motion/Affirmation in Support/Affidavits
                                                Support/Affidavits Annexed
                                                                   Annexed
           Exhibits
           Exhibits Annexed
                     Annexed .......... .                                                                    25-29
                                                                                                             25-29
           Affirmation
           Affirmation in Opposition/Affidavits
                           Opposition! Affidavits Annexed/Exhibits
                                                     Annexed/Exhibits Annexed
                                                                      Annexed ........... .                  37-43
                                                                                                             37-43

                    In this
                       this action,
                            action, Soel Lounge
                                         Lounge Inc. D/B/A Embassy
                                                     D/B/A Embassy Lounge
                                                                   Lounge ("Defendant")
                                                                          ("Defendant") moves
                                                                                        moves (Motion
                                                                                              (Motion
           Seq. l}for
                l)for an order
                         order pursuant
                               pursuant to CPLR
                                           CPLR 321 l(a)(5) dismissing
                                                3211(a)(5)  dismissing Aida
                                                                       Aida A. Sirleafs
                                                                               Sirleafs ("Plaintiff')
                                                                                        ("Plaintiff')
           complaint
           complaint on the grounds
                            grounds of
                                    of res judicata
                                           judicata and
                                                    and collateral
                                                        collateral estoppel.
                                                                   estoppel. Defendant
                                                                             Defendant also
                                                                                       also moves
                                                                                            moves for an
           order
           order pursuant
                 pursuant to CPLR
                             CPLR 321 l(a)(4) dismissing
                                  3211(a)(4)  dismissing Plaintiffs
                                                         Plaintiffs complaint
                                                                    complaint on
                                                                              on the ground
                                                                                     ground of
                                                                                            of duplicative
                                                                                               duplicative
           litigation
           litigation because
                      because there
                              there is another
                                       another action
                                               action pending
                                                      pending between
                                                              between the same
                                                                          same parties
                                                                               parties for the same
                                                                                               same cause
                                                                                                    cause of
                                                                                                          of
           action.
           action. In the
                      the event that Defendant's
                          event that             motion is denied,
                                     Defendant's motion    denied, Defendant
                                                                   Defendant requests    extension oftime
                                                                             requests an extension of time
           to file an answer
                      answer to the
                                the complaint.
                                    complaint. Plaintiff
                                               Plaintiff has opposed
                                                             opposed the motion
                                                                         motion on
                                                                                on the
                                                                                   the ground
                                                                                       ground that
                                                                                              that CPLR
                                                                                                   CPLR 205
                                            ,
                                            '
          permits
          permits refiling
                  refiling of
                           of a lawsuit
                                lawsuit that
                                        that was
                                             was not
                                                 not dismissed
                                                     dismissed on the merits.
                                                                      merits. Plaintiff
                                                                              Plaintiff moves
                                                                                        moves (Motion
                                                                                              (Motion Seq.
          2) for a default judgment against
                   default judgment         Defendant for failure
                                    against Defendant     failure to appear
                                                                     appear and/or
                                                                            and/or serve
                                                                                   serve an
                                                                                         an answer
                                                                                            answer in this
                                                                                                      this
          action.
          action. Defendant
                  Defendant has
                            has opposed
                                opposed the
                                        the motion
                                            motion on the ground
                                                          ground that
                                                                 that Plaintiff
                                                                      Plaintiff does
                                                                                does not
                                                                                     not have
                                                                                         have standing
                                                                                              standing to
          proceed
          proceed with
                  with a motion
                         motion for a default judgment as there
                                      default judgment    there has not
                                                                    not been
                                                                        been a decision
                                                                               decision on Defendant's
                                                                                           Defendant's
          motion pursuant to CPLR
          motion pursuant    CPLR 321
                                  3211(g)(3).
                                      l(g)(3).
                    This
                    This action
                         action arises
                                arises out
                                       out of
                                           of an incident
                                                 incident on October
                                                             October 26, 2018
                                                                         2018 wherein
                                                                              wherein Plaintiff
                                                                                      Plaintiff sustained
                                                                                                sustained
          injuries
          injuries at a night
                        night club
                              club located
                                   located at 33-02
                                              33-02 Queens
                                                    Queens Boulevard
                                                           Boulevard in Long
                                                                        Long Island
                                                                             Island City,
                                                                                    City, New
                                                                                          New York. On or
          about
          about May
                May 22, 2019,
                        2019, Plaintiff
                              Plaintiff commenced
                                        commenced an action
                                                     action to recover
                                                               recover damages
                                                                       damages under Index #
                                                                               under Index

                                                                       11

                                                                    1 of 5
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 12:28 PM                                                        INDEX NO. 521395/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

           511424/2019
           511424/2019 ("Action
                       ("Action 11").
                                  "). Issue
                                      Issue was
                                            was joined    Action 1 with
                                                joined in Action        Defendant Soel
                                                                   with Defendant      Lounge Inc. by
                                                                                  Soel Lounge
           service of
           service of an Answer        about November
                         Answer on or about                Additionally, issue
                                              November 5, Additionally,        was joined
                                                                         issue was              Defendant
                                                                                           with Defendant
                                                                                   joined with
           Keisha
           Keisha Taylor
                   Taylor ("Taylor"),
                          ("Taylor"), in Action      service of
                                         Action 1 by service                with Counterclaims
                                                                   Answer with
                                                             of an Answer                             about
                                                                                 Counterclaim s on or about
           January
           January 31,2020
                   31, 2020 (See,
                            (See, Exhibit
                                  Exhibit "C").
                                          "C"). An           Defendant Soel
                                                   Answer to Defendant
                                                An Answer              Soel Lounge's  cross-claims was
                                                                            Lounge' s cross-claims
           also interposed
                interposed by Defendant              Action 1 on or about
                                          Taylor, in Action
                                Defendant Taylor,                         January 31, 2020.
                                                                    about January                 about June
                                                                                      2020. On or about
           2, 2020,
              2020, a third-party
                      third-party action
                                  action was
                                         was commenced
                                             commenced in Action              American Fire
                                                                      against American
                                                            Action 1 against                 & Security
                                                                                        Fire & Security Inc.
           ("AFS")
           ("AFS") and issue
                       issue was
                             was joined
                                 joined in Action
                                           Action 1 with Third-Party Defendant,
                                                    with Third-Party            AFS by service
                                                                     Defendant, AFS            of an
                                                                                       service of
           Answer on or about
           Answer             October 9,
                        about October    2020.
                                      9,2020.
                   On January
                       January 6, 2021,
                                  2021, Defendant
                                        Defendant filed a motion
                                                          motion to dismiss  Plaintiffs complaint
                                                                     dismiss Plaintiffs                 Action 1
                                                                                         complaint in Action
           and to preclude
                  preclude Plaintiff
                           Plaintiff from
                                     from offering
                                          offering evidence
                                                   evidence and testimony               of the trial
                                                                                  time of
                                                                testimony at the time                   Action 1
                                                                                               trial in Action
           for failure
               failure to provide court ordered
                          provide court ordered discovery.     February 9, 2021,
                                                discovery. On February            Judge Knipel
                                                                           2021, Judge         issued an
                                                                                        Knipel issued
           order
           order in Action
                     Action 1 granting
                               granting Defendant's
                                        Defendant's motion
                                                    motion to the extent      discovery was
                                                                         that discovery
                                                                  extent that               directed to be
                                                                                        was directed
           served by a date
           served      date certain,
                            certain, and
                                     and that  failure to comply
                                          that failure                     order "will
                                                                  with the order
                                                          comply with            "will result        Plaintiff
                                                                                       result in the Plaintiff
           being
           being precluded  from offering
                 precluded from   offering evidence
                                            evidence without                further motion,
                                                                   need for further
                                                       without the need                                   CPLR
                                                                                              pursuant to CPLR
                                                                                    motion, pursuant
           3126
           3126 (2) without
                    without further
                            further order."
                                    order." On April
                                               April 20, 2021,
                                                         2021, as a result    Plaintiff not
                                                                           of Plaintiff
                                                                    result of                          with
                                                                                            complying with
                                                                                        not complying
           Judge
           Judge Knipel's
                 Knipel's order,
                          order, Defendant  moved for summary
                                 Defendant moved       summary judgment        Action 1 based
                                                                 judgment in Action                         that
                                                                                          based on the fact that
           Plaintiff would
           Plaintiff would not
                           not be able
                                  able to make out a prima
                                          make out                         result of
                                                                 case as a result
                                                     prima facie case             of the preclusion language
                                                                                         preclusion language
           in the order.
                  order. On
                         On August
                            August 9,2021,
                                   9, 2021, Judge
                                            Judge Rothenberg
                                                  Rothenberg issued    order granting
                                                             issued an order          Defendant's
                                                                             granting Defendant's
           summary judgment
           summary   judgment motion
                                 motion and dismissed
                                              dismissed Plaintiffs   case against
                                                         Plaintiff's case         Defendant. On
                                                                          against Defendant.     August 19,
                                                                                              On August
           2021, the Plaintiff
           2021,     Plaintiff filed
                               filed a Notice     Appeal and
                                               of Appeal
                                       Notice of                motion to renew
                                                          and a motion             and reargue
                                                                            renew and             September 15,
                                                                                               on September
                                                                                       reargue on
           2021,
           2021, which
                 which was
                       was denied
                           denied by the
                                     the court    March 1, 2023.
                                         court on March          Plaintiff has
                                                           2023. Plaintiff     also appealed
                                                                           has also               decision
                                                                                             that decision
                                                                                    appealed that

           on March 17,2023,
              March 17, 2023, which          pending a decision.
                              which is still pending   decision.
                    Plaintiff
                    Plaintiff has
                              has commenced
                                  commenced this
                                            this instant
                                                 instant action
                                                         action ("Action 2") seeking
                                                                ("Action 2")                    damages for
                                                                                        recover damages
                                                                             seeking to recover
           personal
           personal injuries sustained as a result
                    injuries sustained      result of
                                                   of Defendant's
                                                      Defendant's alleged negligence on
                                                                  alleged negligence            26, 2018, at
                                                                                        October 26,2018,
                                                                                     on October
           a night club located
             night club located at 33-02
                                   33-02 Queens
                                          Queens Boulevard             Island City,
                                                                 Long Island
                                                  Boulevard in Long                 New York.
                                                                              City, New                      of its
                                                                                                    support of
                                                                                         York. In support
           motion,
           motion, Defendant
                    Defendant argues
                                argues that
                                       that this
                                            this matter
                                                 matter has
                                                        has been previously adjudicated
                                                            been previously                          resolution in
                                                                                              final resolution
                                                                             adjudicated to a final
            Action
            Action 1 and that
                         that Judge
                              Judge Rothenberg's
                                    Rothenberg's order
                                                 order constitutes                     the merits.
                                                                           decision on the
                                                       constitutes a final decision                Defendant
                                                                                           merits. Defendant
            states that
            states that Plaintiff
                        Plaintiff has asserted
                                       asserted identical
                                                 identical allegations    both actions
                                                           allegations in both         between the same
                                                                               actions between              parties and
                                                                                                      same parties
            that
            that the doctrines
                     doctrines ofof res judicata
                                        judicata and
                                                  and collateral
                                                      collateral estoppel now bar
                                                                 estoppel now       Plaintiffss claims
                                                                               bar Plaintiff                 being
                                                                                                        from being
                                                                                                claims from
            relitigated.
            re litigated. Defendant states that
                          Defendant states that Action                        Plaintiff has filed
                                                                  pending, as Plaintiff
                                                Action 1 is still pending,                  filed motions    renew
                                                                                                  motions to renew

            and reargue and to appeal.
                reargue and    appeal. In opposition, Plaintiff argues
                                          opposition, Plaintiff        that Action
                                                                argues that          was dismissed
                                                                            Action 1 was dismissed

                                                                 2

                                                            2 of 5
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 12:28 PM                                                        INDEX NO. 521395/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

           procedurally
           procedurally rather
                         rather than
                                than on the
                                         the merits                  Plaintiff is permitted
                                                           therefore Plaintiff
                                              merits and therefore                              refile the lawsuit
                                                                                  permitted to refile      lawsuit
           pursuant
           pursuant to CPLR
                        CPLR 205.
                               205. Plaintiff
                                     Plaintiff states
                                               states that
                                                      that Judge   Rothenberg's's order
                                                            Judge Rothenberg      order did  not state
                                                                                         did not state that      matter
                                                                                                        that the matter
           was
           was dismissed
                dismissed with
                            with prejudice
                                 prejudice or that
                                              that dismissal
                                                   dismissal was based on a general
                                                             was based              pattern of
                                                                            general pattern           on
                                                                                                delay on
                                                                                            of delay
           Plaintiff
           Plaintiff'ss behalf
                        behalf and
                               and therefore
                                   therefore her
                                             her decision
                                                 decision was   procedural outcome
                                                          was a procedural                     from the failure
                                                                                    resulting from
                                                                           outcome resulting             failure
           to comply
              comply with   court orders
                      with court   orders and
                                          and not               ion of
                                                     determination
                                               not a determinat             underlying legal
                                                                     of the underlying                     their
                                                                                               claims on their
                                                                                        legal claims
           merits,
           merits, thus
                   thus res
                        res judicata  and collateral
                            judicata and             estoppel are inapplicable.
                                          collateral estoppel                     Plaintiff claims
                                                                   inapplicable. Plaintiff          that the instant
                                                                                            claims that      instant
           action was
           action was properly filed well
                      properly filed well within
                                          within 6 months        order dated
                                                          of the order
                                                   months of           dated August.             that the
                                                                             August. 9, 2021 and that
           Defendant     timely served
                     was timely
           Defendant was        served on November    2021.
                                          November 8, 2021.
                   If
                   If an action
                         action is timely
                                   timely commenced
                                           commence d and is terminated           other manner
                                                               terminated in any other          than by a
                                                                                        manner than
           voluntary
           voluntary discontinuance,      failure to obtain
                      discontinuance, a failure      obtain personal jurisdiction over
                                                            personal jurisdiction          defendant, a dismissal
                                                                                  over the defendant,   dismissal
           of the complaint
           of      complaint for neglect
                                 neglect to prosecute
                                            prosecute the action, o"r
                                                      the action,       final judgment
                                                                  or a final           upon the
                                                                              judgment upon              the
                                                                                                 merits, the
                                                                                             the merits,
           plaintiff,
           plaintiff, may commence a new
                      may commence           action upon
                                         new action           same transaction
                                                    upon the same                                 series of
                                                                                    occurrence or series
                                                                     transaction or occurrence           of
           transactionss or occurrence
           transaction      occurrences s within
                                          within six months after the termination
                                                     months after                           th_at the
                                                                                  provided that
                                                                      termination provided                action
                                                                                                      new action
                                                                                                  the new
           would
           would have
                   have been
                         been timely
                              timely commenced
                                     commence d at the time
                                                         time of  commence ment of
                                                              of commencement        the prior
                                                                                  of the                   that
                                                                                               action and that
                                                                                         prior action
           service upon
           service upon defendant
                        defendant is effected
                                      effected within   such six-month
                                                within such              period (CPLR
                                                             six-month period           205[a]).
                                                                                (CPLR 205   [a]). The Court of
                                                                                                  The Court    of
           Appeals
           Appeals has held
                        held that dismissal of
                             that dismissal  of an action     failure to comply
                                                   action for failure            with discovery
                                                                         comply with                     is aa
                                                                                                  orders is
                                                                                      discovery orders
           dismissal 'for
           dismissal 'for neglect
                          neglect to prosecute
                                     prosecute the action'
                                                   action' within     meaning of
                                                           within the meaning ofCPLR            (Andrea vv
                                                                                       205 [a] (Andrea
                                                                                 CPLR 205[a]
           Arnone,
           Arnone, Hedin, Casker,    Kennedy, and
                            Casker, Kennedy,   and Drake,  Architects and
                                                   Drake, Architects      Landscape Architects,
                                                                      and Landscape              P. c.,
                                                                                    Architects, P.  C., 5
           NY3d
           NY3d 514 [2005];
                    [2005]; Sperry
                            Sperry Associates Federal Credit
                                   Associates Federal                      218 AD3d
                                                                     John, 218
                                                      Credit Union v John,                  Dept.
                                                                               AD3d 707 [2d Dept.
           2023]; Morrero
                  Morrero v Crystal Nails, 114 AD3d
                            Crystal Nails,                        2013]).
                                                            Dept. 2013]).
                                               AD3d 101 [2d Dept.
                  Under
                  Under the doctrine
                             doctrine of
                                       of res judicata
                                              judicata a final disposition                 bars litigation
                                                                                   merits bars
                                                               disposition on the merits                   between
                                                                                                litigation between
           the same
               same parties
                    parties or those
                               those in privity
                                        privity with
                                                 with them,  of a cause
                                                       them, of          of action
                                                                  cause of  action arising     of the same
                                                                                           out of
                                                                                   arising out          same
           transaction or series
           transaction     series of transactions s as a cause
                                  of transaction               of action
                                                         cause of action that either was
                                                                         that either was raised          have been
                                                                                                   could have
                                                                                         raised or could      been
           raised in the prior
           raised        prior proceeding
                                proceeding (Josey
                                             (Josey v Goard,     N.Y.3d 386 [20007];
                                                       Goord, 7 N.Y.3d                  Blue Sky, LLC
                                                                               [20007]; Blue             Jerry's
                                                                                                  LLC v Jerry's
           Self
           Self Storage,
                Storage, LLC, 145 A.D.3d
                                  A.D.3d 945 [2d Dept. 2016]). For
                                                 Dept. 2016]).                   privity includes
                                                                       judicata, privity
                                                               For res judicata,                        who
                                                                                                  those who
                                                                                         includes those
           are successors to a property
           are successors       property interest,
                                          interest, those
                                                    those who
                                                          who control      action although
                                                               control an action            not formal
                                                                                  although not  formal parties     it,
                                                                                                                to it,
                                                                                                       parties to
           those
           those whose
                 whose interests
                         interests are represented                     action, and
                                                          party to the action,
                                       represented by a party                      possibly co-parties
                                                                               and possibly co-parties to    prior
                                                                                                       to aa prior
            action (Restateme
            action (Restatement,              81-90; Watts v Swiss
                                   Judgments 81-90;
                               nt, Judgments                        Bank Corp., 27 N.Y.2d
                                                             Swiss Bank                   270 [2d Dept.
                                                                                   N.Y.2d 270       Dept.
            1970]). Res judicata
            1970]).                may only
                         judicata may  only apply
                                            apply when
                                                  when there            judgment on the merits
                                                       there is a final judgment                  the first
                                                                                        merits in the
            action
            action (In re Hunter,
                          Hunter, 4 N.Y.3d
                                     N.Y.3d 260 [2005];       Sheng Wang v Pao-Mei
                                                 [2005]; Hae Sheng                                 A.D.3d 1005
                                                                             Pao-Mei Wang, 96 A.D.3d
            [2d Dept.
            [2d  Dept. 2012]).
                       2012]). In instances
                                  instances when
                                            when a dismissal
                                                    dismissal of   claim occurs
                                                              of a claim        prior to the
                                                                         occurs prior              of a
                                                                                             close of
                                                                                         the close

                                                                 3

                                                            3 of 5
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 12:28 PM                                                       INDEX NO. 521395/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

            proponent's evidence, the dismissal
            proponent's evidence,               will not
                                      dismissal will                            merits so as to preclude
                                                            deemed to be on the merits
                                                     not be deemed                                       the
                                                                                                preclude the
            commencement
            commence       of a second
                     ment of    second action                   Maitland v Trojan
                                                   CPLR 5013; Maitland
                                       action (see CPLR                    Trojan Elec. &              65
                                                                                                  Co., 65
                                                                                        & Mach. Co.,
            N.Y.2d
            N.Y.2d 614 [1985]). Thus,
                   614 [1985]). Thus, where
                                      where a party's
                                               party's noncompliance with a disclosure
                                                       noncompliance with              order does
                                                                            disclosure order          result
                                                                                                  not result
                                                                                             does not
            in
            in aa dismissal
                  dismissal with
                            with prejudice
                                 prejudice or an order
                                                 order of preclusion or summary
                                                       of preclusion            judgment in favor
                                                                        summary judgment    favor of     other
                                                                                                     the other
                                                                                                  of the
            party
            party so as to effectively
                           effectively close
                                       close that
                                             that party's proof, a dismissal
                                                  party's proof,   dismissal resulting          noncompliance is
                                                                                       from the noncompliance
                                                                             resulting from                   is
            not
            not aa determinat
                   determination
                              ion on the
                                     the merits          bar the commence
                                         merits so as to bar     commencement       second action
                                                                               of a second
                                                                          ment of          action pursuant to
                                                                                                  pursuant to
            the doctrine
            the doctrine ofres
                         of res judicata (Maitland at 615-616;
                                judicata (Maitland    615-616; Daluise   Sottile, 40 AD.3d
                                                               Daluise v Sottile,                   Dept.
                                                                                     A.D.3d 801 [2d Dept.
            2007]).
            2007]).
                      Under
                      Under the
                            the doctrine
                                doctrine of
                                         of collateral estoppel, a party
                                            collateral estoppel,            precluded from
                                                                   party is precluded                    in aa
                                                                                           'relitigating in
                                                                                      from 'relitigating
            subsequent action
            subsequent action or proceeding   an issue
                                  proceeding an                 raised in a prior
                                                        clearly raised
                                                 issue clearly                               proceeding and
                                                                                   action or proceeding
                                                                            prior action                 and
            decided against
            decided against that
                            that party or those
                                 party or those in privity, whether or not
                                                   privity, whether          the tribunals
                                                                        not the                causes of
                                                                                 tribunals or causes     action are
                                                                                                      of action are
            the same (Ryan
            the same (Ryan v New York Telephone
                             New York                          494 [1984];
                                                        N.Y.2d 494
                                      Telephone Co., 62 N.Y.2d                             Bus Co., 83
                                                                                     Amboy Bus
                                                                   [1984]; Vitello v Amboy          83
            AD.3d 932 [2d Dept.
            A.D.3d           Dept. 2011];  Arcamone-Makinano v Perlmutter,
                                   2011]; Arcamone-Makinano                            A.D.3d 479
                                                                     Perlmutter, 196 A.D.3d             Dept.
                                                                                               479 [2d Dept.
            2021]).
            2021 ]). The
                     The doctrine
                         doctrine applies
                                  applies if
                                          if the
                                             the issue
                                                 issue in the second action
                                                          the second            identical to an issue
                                                                      action is identical                   was
                                                                                                      which was
                                                                                                issue which
            raised,
            raised, necessarily
                    necessarily decided
                                decided and
                                        and material              action, and
                                            material in the first action, and the plaintiff had a full and fair
                                                                                  plaintiff had            fair
            opportunity to litigate
            opportunity    litigate the issue        earlier action
                                        issue in the earlier action (Parker    Blauvelt Volunteer
                                                                    (Parker v Blauvelt   Volunteer Fire        Inc.,
                                                                                                    Fire Co., Inc.,
            93 N.Y.2d
            93                       Arcamone-Makinano at 480).
                            [1999]; Arcamone-Makinano
               N.Y.2d 343 [1999];                                     Privity, as a requirement
                                                                480). Privity,                   of collateral
                                                                                    requirement of  collateral
              estoppel, may
              estoppel,  may be found
                                 found where
                                         where a nonparty
                                                 nonparty to prior                  relationship with
                                                                   litigation has a relationship
                                                             prior litigation                    with a party    the
                                                                                                        party to the

           .. prior
              prior litigation such that
                    litigation such that his or her
                                                her own
                                                    own rights                   the subsequent
                                                                  obligations in the
                                                        rights or obligations                                 are
                                                                                                 proceeding are
                                                                                      subsequent proceeding
            conditioned
            conditioned in one
                           one way
                               way or another        derivative of, the rights
                                      another on, or derivative                       party to
                                                                               of the party
                                                                        rights of                  prior
                                                                                            to the prior
            litigation
            litigation [D'Arata
                       [D'Arata v New York Cent. Mut. Fire
                                  New York                              N/Y/2d 659 [1990];New
                                                      Fire Ins. Co., 76 N/Y/2d                     State
                                                                                   [l990];New York State
            Thruway Authority
            Thruway                                            Dept. 2021]).
                                                  A.D.3d [2d Dept.
                    Authority v Ketco, Inc., 195 AD.3d               2021]).
                  Here, the court
                  Here,     court finds
                                  finds that
                                        that the order precluding Plaintiff
                                                 order precluding            from being
                                                                  Plaintiff from                offer evidence
                                                                                        able to offer
                                                                                  being able          evidence
            at the time
            at     time of
                        of trial
                           trial as well    Plaintiff's noncomplia
                                    well as Plaintiff's noncompliance  with Judge
                                                                   nce with       Knipel's discovery
                                                                            Judge Knipel's                 in
                                                                                                     order in
                                                                                           discovery order
            which
            which resulted
                    resulted in Judge
                                 Judge Rotenberg
                                       Rotenberg granting
                                                    granting summary              favor of
                                                                      judgment in favor
                                                             summary judgment                           Action
                                                                                           Defendant in Action
                                                                                        of Defendant

            11 constitue
               constitue a final determination         merits for the purposes
                                 determination on the merits                           judicata. As stated
                                                                                of res judicata.
                                                                      purposes of                    stated by  the
                                                                                                            by the
            Appellate
            Appellate Division,
                         Division, while
                                   while public policy favors
                                         public policy             resolution of
                                                       favors the resolution     cases on
                                                                              of cases  on the merits, a court
                                                                                           the merits,          may
                                                                                                          court may
            strike aa pleading
            strike                   sanction if
                      pleading as a sanction  if a party
                                                   party refuses            order for disclosure
                                                                    obey an order
                                                         refuses to obey                            willfully fails
                                                                                      disclosure or willfully
            to disclose
            to disclose information
                          information which   the court
                                       which the               ought to have
                                                   court finds ought    have been disclosed. This
                                                                             been disclosed.       drastic remedy
                                                                                              This drastic remedy
               appropriate in instances
            is appropriate    instances where
                                         where there       clear showing
                                                there is a clear               the failure
                                                                          that the
                                                                 showing that                        with
                                                                                              comply with
                                                                                   failure to comply
            discovery
            discovery orders
                       orders was
                               was willful
                                    willful and continuous.                     Court of
                                                              Additionally, the Court
                                                continuous. Additionally,                  Appeals has held
                                                                                        of Appeals               the
                                                                                                            that the
                                                                                                       held that

                                                                 4

                                                             4 of 5
[* 4]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2024 12:28 PM                                                       INDEX NO. 521395/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024

           failure to comply
                      comply with   discovery orders
                               with discovery  orders warrants               neglect to prosecute
                                                               dismissal for neglect
                                                      warrants dismissal                           the action.
                                                                                        prosecute the  action.
           Contrary to Plaintiff's
           Contrary                 contention, while
                        Plaintiffs contention,                            August 16,
                                                             Rotenberg's August
                                                      Judge Rotenberg's
                                                while Judge                       16,2021,   order did not state
                                                                                      2021, order           state
           that
           that the matter
                    matter was           with prejudice,
                               dismissed with
                           was dismissed                       well settled
                                              prejudice, it is well settled that    order entered
                                                                            that an order              motion
                                                                                                  on a motion
                                                                                          entered on
               summary judgment
           for summary          constitutes a disposition
                       judgment constitutes                      merits and a~cordingly
                                              disposition on the merits                    entitled to
                                                                            accordingly is entitled
           preclusive            purposes of
                      effect for purposes
           preclusive effect                 res judicata
                                          of res             collateral estoppel
                                                 judicata or collateral                   City of
                                                                                 (Bayer v City
                                                                        estoppel (Bayer        of New York,
                                                                                                  New.York,
               AD3d 897 [2d Dept.
           115 AD3d.        Dept. 2014};
                                  2014]; Methal   City of
                                         Methal v City    New York, 50 AD3d
                                                       of New                       Dept. 2008]).
                                                                            654 [2d Dept.
                                                                       AD3d 654           2008]).
           Moreover,
           Moreover, the court found
                     the court found that
                                     that the             order of
                                              conditional order
                                          the conditional          preclusion became
                                                                of preclusion                      result of
                                                                                     absolute as a result
                                                                              became absolute             of
           Plaintiffs failure
           Plaintiff's failure to provide
                                  provicle discovery     that Plaintiff
                                                     and that
                                           discovery and                          meet her
                                                                        failed to meet
                                                              Plaintiff failed                       avoid the
                                                                                           burden to avoid
                                                                                       her burden
           adverse effect
           adverse effect of
                          of the
                             the conditional order of
                                 conditional order    preclusion, as she did not
                                                   of preclusion,                              reasonable
                                                                                 demonstrate a reasonable
                                                                             not demonstrate
           excuse for the
           excuse     the failure
                          failure to comply
                                     comply with
                                            with the order and the existence
                                                 the order                        potentially meritorious
                                                                             of a potentially
                                                                   existence of               meritorious
           cause of
           cause of action.
                    action. In denying
                               denying Plaintiff
                                       Plaintiff'ss motion    renew and reargue,
                                                    motion to renew                  court found
                                                                                 the court
                                                                        reargue, the       found that Plaintiff
                                                                                                 that Plaintiff
           failed to establish
           failed    establish that
                               that the court misapprehended
                                    the court                the law
                                              misapprehended the        the facts in granting
                                                                 law or the                       prior motion
                                                                                              the prior
                                                                                     granting the       motion
           for summary
               summary judgment
                       judgment dismissing     complaint. Thus,
                                dismissing the complaint. Thus, the matter          adjudicated to a
                                                                               been adjudicated
                                                                           has been
                                                                    matter has                     a final
                         Action 1.
           resolution in Action
           resolution
                      It is undisputed
                            undisputed that     causes of
                                       that the causes    action alleged
                                                       of action alleged here arise from
                                                                         here arise      the same
                                                                                    from the      transaction or
                                                                                             same transaction
           series of
           series of transactions
                     transactions as those    Action 1 and therefore
                                     those in Action                              raised herein
                                                                          claims raised
                                                            therefore all claims                        have and
                                                                                                 could have
                                                                                         herein could
           should have
           should  have been
                         been raised
                               raised in Action   and are subsequently
                                         Action 1 and                    barred from
                                                          subsequently barred   from being   relitigated. It is also
                                                                                       being relitigated.
           undisputed that
           undisputed that the
                           the same
                               same parties
                                    parties are involved         actions and that
                                                            both actions
                                                involved in both                              currently still
                                                                                  Action 1 is currently
                                                                             that Action
                  warranting dismissal
           active warranting
           active            dismissal pursuant    CPLR 321
                                       pursuant to CPLR     l(a)(4).
                                                        3211(a)(4).
                      Accordingly, it is hereby,
                      Accordingly,       hereby,
                      ORDERED, that
                      ORDERED, that Defendant's motion to dismiss
                                    Defendant's motion    dismiss Plaintiffs  complaint is granted,
                                                                  Plaintiff's complaint             and it is
                                                                                           granted, and
           further,
           further,
                      ORDERED, that
                      ORDERED,      Plaintiff's motion
                               that Plaintiffs                      moot.
                                                          denied as moot.
                                                motion is denied
                      Issues not
                      Issues not addressed     either moot
                                 addressed are either         without merit.
                                                      moot or without merit.
                      This constitutes
                      This constitutes the              order of
                                                    and order
                                           decision and
                                       the decision              the court.
                                                              of the court.                                                   I
                                                                                                                              l

                                                                          Hon.        Joseph J.S.C.
                                                                                    d Joseph J.S.C.

                                                                                Hon ngnd Joseph
                                                                                Ho
                                                                              Supreme Court
                                                                              Supreme       Justice
                                                                                      Court Justice

                                                                5

[* 5]                                                       5 of 5                                                            j