Pouncy v. Dudley

In Pouncy v. Dudley (27 AD3d 633 [2006] the plaintiff sued for a judgment pursuant to RPAPL article 15, declaring a deed to certain real property was void and that he was the owner in fee simple of the property. The defendant cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) and (7) to dismiss the complaint asserted against it arguing the plaintiff was collaterally estopped from pursuing the quiet title action based upon the foreclosure judgment obtained in another action. By order of the Supreme Court, the cross motion was denied, and the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, with costs (27 AD3d 633, 814 N.Y.S.2d 641 [2006]). The Appellate Division held that since the plaintiff had not been a party to, or in privity with a party in the prior foreclosure case, he could not be bound by the doctrine of collateral estoppel with respect to the issues in the quiet title action. The Appellate Division noted that although the plaintiff had moved for leave to intervene in the foreclosure action, the defendant had opposed the motion on the ground, among others, that the plaintiff's remedy was not intervention in the foreclosure action, but rather was to bring an action to quiet title. The Appellate Division also noted that the order denying the motion for leave to intervene had been affirmed.