| Silva v Lee |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 50369(U) [55 Misc 3d 128(A)] |
| Decided on March 29, 2017 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Stephen David Fink, Esq., for appellant.
David Lee, respondent pro se (no brief filed).
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Larry Love, J.), entered April 1, 2015. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $5,000 for a breach of contract that had allegedly occurred in February of 2013. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that, by virtue of actions taken by defendant, her landlord, she was forced to go to a hotel for three months commencing in February of 2013. Defendant indicated to the court that plaintiff had previously filed a small claims action against him for $5,000 for a breach of a lease which had occurred in February of 2013. Defendant stated that, in the prior action, in July of 2014, an arbitrator had awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $700. Defendant gave the court copies of the prior court papers.
Following the trial, the Civil Court dismissed the action, noting that the exact same case had already been adjudicated.
The doctrine of res judicata prevents the relitigation of plaintiff's claim (see Gerstman v Fountain Terrace Owners Corp., 31 Misc 3d 148[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50988[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). While plaintiff argues that, pursuant to CCA 1808, a small claims judgment cannot have res judicata effect, that provision was intended to divest the small claims judgment only of its issue preclusion use, otherwise known as collateral estoppel, a subset of res judicata (see Omara v Polise, 163 Misc 2d 989 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 1995]). Where, as here, a plaintiff obtains a small claims judgment against a defendant, the judgment precludes the plaintiff from suing defendant again on the very same claim (see Chorekchan v Forman, 18 Misc 3d 127[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52362[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ., concur.
ENTER: