Quiogue Prop. Mgt., LLC v. Torres
2025 NY Slip Op 04115
N.Y. App. Div.2025Background
- Defendant Gina Torres (aka Gina Makransky) claims beneficial ownership of a single-family home in Southampton, NY, based on an alleged oral agreement with her mother-in-law, Mary Makransky.
- Gina commenced a declaratory judgment action in Supreme Court to confirm her beneficial ownership, alleging she could reside in the home indefinitely and would receive title eventually.
- Plaintiff Quiogue Property Management, LLC sought to evict Gina via repeated holdover proceedings in Justice Court; both actions were dismissed, one on procedural grounds and another for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- In the second holdover proceeding, Justice Court observed Gina's claim of "equitable owner/vendee" status but ultimately dismissed, noting it lacked jurisdiction to determine title.
- Plaintiff then filed this ejectment action in Supreme Court, which was dismissed based on defendant’s argument that collateral estoppel precluded relitigation due to prior Justice Court findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collateral estoppel applicability | Justice Court order has no preclusive effect; plaintiff should get full litigation in Supreme Court | Prior Justice Court order on "equitable ownership" precludes ejectment action | Justice Court findings are not preclusive here |
| Ejectment standard | Plaintiff has title, right to possess, and defendant is in possession | Defendant disputes title and raises equitable ownership | Plaintiff’s complaint should not be dismissed |
| Effect of Justice Court dicta and limited jurisdiction | Justice Court findings were dicta and that court lacked authority to resolve title disputes | Findings on title/equitable ownership are binding | Dicta is not preclusive; title is for Supreme Court |
| Adequacy of prior litigation opportunity | No full and fair trial occurred; key issues not tested by discovery or in appropriate forum | Gina had full opportunity to litigate | Plaintiff denied opportunity below; new action allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ryan v. New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494 (NY Ct. App. 1984) (sets standard for collateral estoppel in New York)
- Gilberg v. Barbieri, 53 NY2d 285 (NY Ct. App. 1981) (collateral estoppel is flexible and depends on fairness, not strict rules)