Court Opinion

ID: 9917184
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 18:08:05.45149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:58.837016
License: Public Domain

Hunte v Cubesmart Self Stor. (2024 NY Slip Op 00133)

Hunte v Cubesmart Self Stor.

2024 NY Slip Op 00133

Decided on January 11, 2024

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: January 11, 2024

Before: Kern, J.P., Oing, Singh, Kapnick, O'Neill Levy, JJ.

Index No. 2713/22 Appeal No. 1396 Case No. 2022-05380 

[*1]Leila Ann Hunte, Plaintiff-Appellant,
vCubesmart Self Storage, Defendant-Respondent.

Leila Ann Hunte, appellant pro se.
Kerley, Walsh, Matera & Cinquemani, P.C., Seaford (Lauren B. Bristol of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul L. Alpert, J.), entered on or about October 12, 2022, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint on the ground that there is another action pending "between the same parties for the same cause of action" (CPLR 3211[a][4]). Plaintiff in this action seeks a monetary judgment in the amount of $100,000 for damages allegedly sustained as a result of defendant allegedly wrongfully auctioning off her items stored in a storage unit. However, plaintiff commenced an action against defendant in the Small Claims part of Civil Court, Bronx County, seeking the same relief as in the instant action, i.e., monetary damages allegedly sustained after the alleged wrongful sale of her items. The small claims action was scheduled for trial in Civil Court in October 2022. Accordingly, if the instant action were permitted to proceed, identical parties would be litigating identical claims, presenting a risk of inconsistent judgments (see Alvarez & Marshal Valuation Servs., LLC v Solar Eclipse Inv. Fund III, LLC, 216 AD3d 447, 448 [1st Dept 2023]).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: January 11, 2024