The Law Offices of Mitchell Cantor, New York (Mitchell Cantor of counsel), for appellant.
Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi P.C., New York (April Campos of counsel), for respondents.
Singh, J.P., Friedman, González, Higgitt, Michael, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered on or about November 28, 2022, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), unanimously affirmed, with costs.
[1] This action is barred by res judicata in view of the final judgment in an action involving plaintiff and defendants High Value Trading LLC and Alskom Realty, LLC regarding the sale or consignment of certain paintings between the parties, which was affirmed by this Court (High Value Trading, LLC v. Shaoul, 168 A.D.3d 641, 93 N.Y.S.3d 306 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 910, 2019 WL 2624037 [2019]).
[2] "[U]nder res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars future actions between the same parties," or those in privity with them, on any "claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions …, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy" (Landau, P.C. v. LaRossa, Mitchell & Ross, 11 N.Y.3d 8, 12, 862 N.Y.S.2d 316, 892 N.E.2d 380 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, defendant Alexander Komolov, the principal of High Value and Alskom, is in privity with both High Value and Alskom (see Buechel v. Bain, 97 N.Y.2d 295, 304–305, 740 N.Y.S.2d 252, 766 N.E.2d 914 [2001], cert denied. 535 U.S. 1096, 122 S.Ct. 2293, 152 L.Ed.2d 1051 [2002]; Specialty Rests. Corp. v. Barry, 236 A.D.2d 754, 755, 653 N.Y.S.2d 972 [3d Dept. 1997]). The claims in this action arise out of the same transaction as the prior action, and contrary to plaintiff’s contention, he could have sought recovery of the paintings in the prior action and thus is precluded from relitigating the issue now (see Rojas v. Romanoff, 186 A.D.3d 103, 107–109, 128 N.Y.S.3d 189 [1st Dept. 2020]).
Comments