present in the bedroom and wall panels. Mr. Leighton found that extensive mold remediation
was necessary, and advised that the recommendations from his original report should be [*7]followed.
WHAT ISSUES REMAIN TO BE DETERMINED AT TRIAL IN
THISPROCEEDING GIVEN THE RELATED LITIGATION, AND PROCEDURAL
HISTORY?
The November 2008 Restoration Order provided that the scope of the issues the
parties could provide evidence was to include unpaid maintenance, late charges, repair charges,
attorneys fees, warranty of habitability and repair. As will be further detailed below, the Court
finds, after trial, that many of the issues on which the parties were permitted to present evidence
had already been addressed by Judge York's Decision in the Supreme Court Action, and other
judges of this court, in HP Proceedings selected by Respondents as the forum within which to
litigate repair issues and orders to correct.
WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
The Court finds that this claim is barred from being re-litigated in this
proceeding based on the doctrine of res judictata. The doctrine of res judicata bar
litigation of any claims that were actually litigated in another action, as well as any claims which
could have been litigated but were not raised (Schuykill Fuel Corp. V. B. & C. Nieberg
RealtyCorp.250 NY 304 [1929]). Once the claims are brought to a final conclusion, such as
by dismissal of the complaint on a summary judgment motion, all other claims arising out of the
same transaction are barred, regardless of whether the court actually addressed them in the other
action (Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v. Lopez, 46 NY2d 481[1979]).
In this case, Respondents asserted in the Supreme Court Action a cause of
action
specifically claiming breach of warranty of habitability under