Noonan v. Matone

KINGS COUNTY
Civil Practice

New York Law Journal

   |0 Comments

Justice Yvonne Lewis

Arguing the claims were barred by res judicata, the Matone defendants moved for dismissal. Noonan cross-moved for leave to amend the verified complaint and include a claim for imposition of a constructive trust on assets of 461 Bayridge Avenue Realty. Noonan asserted he was the sole shareholder of 461 and the Matones invested in, but were never shareholders or owners of, 461. Defendants claimed the subject dispute was already adjudicated, noting the prior court orders put to rest any question of the Matones' ownership, and the lack of any power in Noonan to convey the property or act on the corporation's behalf. The court agreed, granted defendants' motion and dismissed the verified complaint with prejudice. It noted all of Noonan's allegations resulted from the formation, operation and ownership of 461, and the sale of the subject building to Enterprise, ruling the instant action was barred by res judicata. The court concluded all claims in the complaint were barred as they related to the same transactions concerning a 2005 action, which granted judgment in Enterprise's favor and explicitly stated Noonan had no authority or interest regarding 461 or the building. It also denied Noonan's motion.

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202579526484

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.