appropriate. In a case on point Civil Court held "(t)he stipulation between the parties may not
deprive the court of its inherent power to apply the doctrines of res judicata or collateral
estoppel. These doctrines, essential as they are to promote finality in the resolution of disputes
[*10]may not be denied to the Court by agreement of the litigants
(McKeon v. Prudential Lines, Inc., 108 Misc 2d 873, at 876-877 [1981])." See also
Scherer v. The Equitable Life Assurance Society of The United States, 347 F3d 394(2d Cir
2003); Salahuddin v. Jones , 992 F2d 447 (2d Cir 1993)(dismissal of recycled claims
not only appropriate but virtually mandatory).
Based on the foregoing, the Court dismisses Respondents claims for breach of
warranty of
habitability with prejudice.
AN ORDER TO CORRECT
Similarly, this Court issues no order to correct any
alleged conditions in the Subject
Premises. Respondents have litigated this issue in no less than four other cases. In
addition to the three HP Proceedings commenced by Respondents, the fifth cause of action in the
Supreme Court Action was based on Petitioner's alleged failure to correct alleged conditions
which violated the Housing Maintenance Code and other applicable statutes. The first
counterclaim asserted in Respondents' answer to this proceeding, and the fifth cause of action
asserted in the Supreme Court Action are almost word for identical and both seek the same relief
of an order to correct. The relief sought in the complaint expressly states "(p)laintiff demands
that all hazardous conditions in their apartment be corrected by Defendants."
Additionally, Respondents chose to litigate these claims within the HP Proceedings they
commenced for that express purpose. Respondents obtained four court ordered inspections of