You are here: / / Stipulation of Discontinuance With Prejudice in Federal Action Did Not...

Stipulation of Discontinuance With Prejudice in Federal Action Did Not Bar State Action Under the Doctrine of Res Judicata

The Second Department determined a stipulation of discontinuance (with prejudice) of a federal action did not preclude the state action under the doctrine of res judicata.  The court explained the narrow application of “with prejudice” in this context:

“A stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice has the same preclusive effect as a judgment on the merits” … . “The general rule is that a stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice is afforded res judicata effect and will bar litigation of the discontinued causes of action” … . But the language “with prejudice” is narrowly interpreted when the interests of justice or the particular equities involved warrant such an approach … .

As the Supreme Court found, the gravamen of [plaintiff’s] federal complaint was civil RICO claims. The complaint in the instant action, however, does not allege that [defendant] violated a substantive RICO statute … . “[E]stablishing a RICO violation requires more than proof of common-law fraud or conspiracy to defraud” … . Furthermore, the particular equities involved require that the phrase “with prejudice” in the stipulation of discontinuance be narrowly construed so as not to bar the continued litigation of the instant action … . The record demonstrates that the instant action continued to be actively litigated contemporaneously with the voluntary discontinuance of [the] federal action. The record supports a determination that [plaintiff] never abandoned litigation of his state action and that [defendant] was aware of this fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that the voluntary discontinuance with prejudice by [plaintiff] of his federal action did not operate as a res judicata bar to the litigation of his instant action. Klein v Gutman, 2014 NY Slip Op 06949, 2nd Dept 10-15-14

 

You might also like
3/4 Inch Depression Obscured by Puddle of Water Not Trivial As a Matter of Law
HERE THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER THE WORK PLAINTIFF WAS DOING WHEN INJURED; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE COURT NOTED THAT THE RIGHT TO GENERALLY SUPERVISE THE WORK OR TO STOP THE WORK FOR SAFETY VIOLATIONS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “SUPERVISION AND CONTROL” OF THE WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 200 OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).
THE SCHOOL TOOK REASONABLE STEPS TO PREVENT A STUDENT, J. P., FROM ASSAULTING AN UNIDENTIFIED STUDENT AFTER THE SCHOOL LEARNED OF A RUMOR THAT J.P. INTENDED TO FIGHT SOMEONE; WHEN CONFRONTED AND WARNED J.P. DENIED THAT HE INTENDED TO ASSAULT ANYONE; TWO DAYS LATER J.P. ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF’S CHILD; THE SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE (1) THE STAIRS DOWN WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WERE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A HANDRAIL (2) THE STAIRS WERE ADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED (3) OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD STATUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT STATE IT WAS BASED ON FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE AND THE UNCERTIFIED POLICE REPORT WAS INADMISSIBLE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PROPERTY-DAMAGE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE, SUBMITTED AFTER A JURY TRIAL AND JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF, WARRANTED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
PREJUDGMENT INTEREST NEED NOT BE PAID INTO THE COURT PURSUANT TO CPLR 2601 WHEN SUCH A PAYMENT IS MADE TO STOP THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST.
THE CITY HAD CLEARED A PATH FREE OF ICE AND SNOW ON THE SIDEWALK; PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WHEN SHE STEPPED BACKWARDS INTO AN AREA OF THE SIDEWALK WHICH HAD NOT BEEN CLEARED TO AVOID AN UNLEASHED DOG; THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Failure to Submit Expert Affidavit In Support of Meterological Data Precluded... Verdict Finding Defendant’s Negligence Was Not the Proximate Cause of...