You are here: / / Res Judicata Doctrine Precluded Suit Despite Naming Additional Parties...

Res Judicata Doctrine Precluded Suit Despite Naming Additional Parties and Alleging Different Causes of Action and Legal Theories

The Second Department determined the doctrine of res judicata precluded plaintiff’s action, notwithstanding the additional parties named (found to be in privity the the parties named in the prior action) and the different causes of action and legal theories alleged:

“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding” … . Generally, to establish privity the interests of the nonparty must have been represented by a party in the prior proceeding … . The Court of Appeals has observed that privity is an “amorphous concept,” not easily applied…, but persons in privity include those whose interests are represented by a party to the previous action and those “[whose] own rights or obligations in the subsequent proceeding are conditioned in one way or another on, or derivative of, the rights of the party to the prior litigation” … .”

The fact that causes of action may be stated separately, invoke different legal theories, or seek different relief will not permit relitigation of claims'” … . Thus, the doctrine of res judicata “operates to preclude the renewal of issues actually litigated and resolved in a prior proceeding, as well as claims for different relief which arise out of the same factual grouping or transaction and which should have or could have been resolved in the prior proceeding” … . In determining whether a factual grouping constitutes a transaction for res judicata purposes, a court must apply a pragmatic test and analyze how the facts are related as to time, space, origin or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit and whether treating them as a unit conforms to the parties’ expectations or business understanding … . For the doctrine of res judicata to be applied, there must have been, in the prior proceeding, a final judgment on the merits … . “An order granting a summary judgment motion is on the merits and has preclusive effect” … . Bayer v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 02005, 2nd Dept 3-26-14

 

You might also like
AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION ZONE (APZ) COMPONENT OF TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, TOWN LAW, AND STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PETITIONER’S DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICATION WAS COMPLETE BEFORE THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS ADOPTED, ENTITLING PETITIONER TO THE APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR LAW (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND GRANTED THE PETITION FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN IN-LAW APARTMENT, COURT’S LIMITED REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
A NOTICE OF VIOLATION FROM THE CITY TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER REGARDING THE DETERIORATED CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT (A PROTRUDING METAL BAR) WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).
RECORDED JAIL PHONE CALLS MAY NOT HAVE RELATED TO THE OFFENSE WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE TRIAL, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INJURED ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE VIABLE HOWEVER, USE OF ALIAS WAS NOT A FRAUD UPON THE COURT.
THE GRANTOR WAS NOT THE SOLE HEIR OF THE TITLE HOLDER; THEREFORE THE DEED PURPORTING TO TRANSFER A 100% INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY WAS VOID AB INITIO (SECOND DEPT).
THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE CITY AND FIRE DEPARTMENT HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF A POTENTIAL NEGLIGENCE ACTION ARISING FROM A RESPONSE TO A 911 CALL (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE “ONE ENVELOPE” RULE FOR THE MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Knowledge of the Health Issue Underlying Plaintiff’s Claim, and Knowledge... Defendant Entitled to a Hearing on His Motion to Vacate His Conviction/Defense...