Alberi v. Gnerre, 36 N.Y.2d 900 (1975)

A pending prior action warrants dismissal of a subsequent action only when both suits involve the same parties and seek the same relief; the mere presence of a common subject matter is insufficient.

Summary

Alberi sued Gnerre for breach of contract and conspiracy. Gnerre moved to dismiss, arguing a prior action he initiated against Alberi concerning the same property already existed. The trial court denied Gnerre’s motion. The Appellate Division reversed, dismissing Alberi’s complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that because the parties and relief sought in the two actions differed, dismissal based on a prior pending action was inappropriate. The Court of Appeals emphasized that Gnerre’s action was to determine claims to real property, while Alberi’s involved breach of contract and conspiracy claims with additional defendants, thus warranting separate actions.

Facts

Plaintiff Alberi initiated an action against defendant Gnerre for breach of contract related to real property development in Putnam County. Alberi also asserted claims against Gnerre, Liccione, and Yorio for conspiracy to defraud and, additionally, a claim for conspiracy to inflict bodily harm against Alberi.
Gnerre had previously commenced an action in Putnam County against Alberi to determine claims to the same real property under Article 15 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law. Liccione and Yorio, defendants in Alberi’s suit, were not parties to Gnerre’s prior action.

Procedural History

The trial court denied Gnerre’s motion to dismiss Alberi’s complaint. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision and dismissed Alberi’s complaint against Gnerre based on the prior pending action in Putnam County and the derivative nature of the conspiracy claims. Alberi appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the existence of a prior action initiated by Gnerre against Alberi concerning title to real property warrants dismissal of Alberi’s subsequent action against Gnerre (and others) for breach of contract and conspiracy related to the same property.

Holding

No, because the prior action does not involve the same parties and seek substantially the same relief as the subsequent action. Therefore, dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(4) is not warranted.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that CPLR 3211(a)(4) allows dismissal based on a prior pending action only when the two actions are between the same parties and for the same cause of action. The court noted that while the two suits arose from the same subject matter, Gnerre’s prior action to determine claims to real property sought different relief than Alberi’s action for breach of contract and conspiracy, which also involved additional defendants.

The Court emphasized that the nature of the relief sought was not the same or substantially the same in both actions. Alberi did not assert a counterclaim in Gnerre’s prior action. The court stated: “Although the causes of action in both suits arise out of the same subject matter or series of alleged wrongs, there is good reason for the separate existence of the earlier cause of action asserted by Gnerre apart from those asserted against him in the instant action, since the nature of the relief sought is not the same or substantially the same”.

While a joint trial might be appropriate, the court found it unjust to order one without proper notification to all parties in both actions. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and reinstated the trial court’s order, allowing Alberi’s action to proceed.