You are here: / / Out-of-State Dismissal with Prejudice Barred Similar New York Action Under...
,

Out-of-State Dismissal with Prejudice Barred Similar New York Action Under Doctrine of Res Judicata

The Third Department determined that an Alabama paternity proceeding brought by the mother against the respondent, which was dismissed with prejudice, barred the paternity proceeding brought by the mother in New York under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.  The court explained the “res judicata” principles:

“In New York, res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars successive litigation based upon the same transaction or series of connected transactions if: (i) there is a judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, and (ii) the party against whom the doctrine is invoked was a party to the previous action [or proceeding], or in privity with a party who was” … .

Here, there is no dispute that the Alabama proceeding involved the same parties and underlying issues, i.e., paternity and child support. Additionally, under both Alabama and New York law, a dismissal “with prejudice” indeed constitutes an adjudication “on the merits”…. . Matter of Starla D v Jeremy E, 2014 NY Slip Op 07033, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

You might also like
HEARING OFFICER’S DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR A WITNESS AND FAILURE TO INQUIRE INTO INMATE WINTESSES’ REFUSAL TO TESTIFY REQUIRED A NEW HEARING.
In a Neglect Proceeding, the Review of Sealed Documents by the Evaluating Psychologist Required that His Testimony Be Entirely Discounted
Tape Recording Reflecting Frustration About Treatment of Muslim Inmates Did Not Warrant Punishment
Restrictive Covenants in Homeowners’ Association’s Declaration Do Not Apply to Land Along a Road Which Had Been Dedicated by the Association to the Town
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO FATHER CONCERNING VISITATION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE INVOLVED MOTHER’S BOYFRIEND IN KEEPING FATHER INFORMED ABOUT MOTHER’S HEALTH (THIRD DEPT).
IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE REFEREE’S FAILURE TO HOLD A HEARING DOES NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE IF THE DEFENDANT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE REFEREE’S REPORT BY SUBMITTING EVIDENCE DIRECTLY TO SUPREME COURT (THIRD DEPT).
Jury Should Not Have Been Allowed to Hear Defendant’s Refusal to Waive His Right to Remain Silent and His Invocation of His Right to Counsel
Determination Annulled and Expunged—Hearing Officer Did Not Take Any Steps to Confirm the Reliability of the Confidential Information Upon Which the Determination Was Based

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

People Did Not Meet Their Burden of Demonstrating Developmentally Disabled Respondent,... Although Title Had Not Yet Formally Passed to the Driver/Owner, the Vehicle...