You are here: / / Dismissal as Time-Barred Is a Dismissal On the Merits for Purposes of Res...
, ,

Dismissal as Time-Barred Is a Dismissal On the Merits for Purposes of Res Judicata

In an article 78 action challenging the prohibition (by the Buffalo Fiscal Stability Authority) of the implementation of a wage increase pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, the Fourth Department noted that the dismissal of an action as time-barred is a determination on the merits for res judicata purposes:  “It is well established that a dismissal of a proceeding as time-barred “ ‘is equivalent to a determination on the merits for res judicata purposes’”… . Matter of Buffalo Professional Firefighters Association, Inc…, CA 12-02126, 371, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

You might also like
THE JURY’S FINDING THAT THE VICTIM SUFFERED “SERIOUS INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ASSAULT SECOND STATUTE WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD HAVE MADE AN INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS OF JUROR BIAS BASED UPON AN OBSERVATION DURING A RECESS, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
Assault Counts Should Have Been Dismissed As Inclusory Concurrent Counts of the Counts Charging Assault in the First Degree as a Sexually Motivated Felony
New York’s Seatbelt Defense Applies to Action Stemming from Pennsylvania Accident (Where There Is No Seatbelt Defense)—Defense Is Not a Conduct-Regulating Law (Which Would Trigger the Application of Pennsylvania Law)—Rather the Defense Relates to the Allocation of Damages (Which Supports the Application of New York Law)
A JURY’S FAILURE TO RENDER A VERDICT ON A COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF AN ACQUITTAL ON THAT COUNT 4TH DEPT.
LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM EYE INJURY ASSOCIATED WITH USE OF A NAIL GUN PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
Naming Different Victim Rendered Superior Court Information Jurisdictionally Defective
THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING THE CPLR ARTICLE 16 DEFENSE AFTER THE OTHER POTENTIALLY LIABLE DEFENDANTS HAD BEEN SEVERED FROM THE ACTION AT THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANT’S REQUEST, AND AFTER THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANT HAD REPRESENTED TO THE COURT THE OTHER POTENTIALLY LIABLE DEFENDANTS WOULD NOT BE PART OF THE TRIAL, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT, THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR THE ERROR IN JUDGMENT JURY INSTRUCTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Grant of Motion to Dismiss Based on Forum Non Conveniens Upheld Error Relating to Assessment of 10% Surcharge Must Be Preserved by Objectio...