doctrines claim in New York

2024Similarly, the Appellate Division, First Department, has held that a plaintiff may be collaterally estopped from asserting claims of discrimination under Title VII, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law after previously challenging their termination in an Article 78 proceeding based on allegations of discrimination that were identical to those asserted in the plenary action ( Rosenthal v Roosevelt Island Operating Corp ., 221 AD3d 551 , 551—52 [1st Dept 2023]; Simmons-Grant v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP , 116 AD3d 134 , 139—40 [1st Dept 2014] ["As the f

2024Similarly, the Appellate Division, First Department, has held that a plaintiff may be collaterally estopped from asserting claims of discrimination under Title VII, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law after previously challenging their termination in an Article 78 proceeding based on allegations of discrimination that were identical to those asserted in the plenary action ( Rosenthal v Roosevelt Island Operating Corp ., 221 AD3d 551 , 551—52 [1st Dept 2023]; Simmons-Grant v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP , 116 AD3d 134 , 139—40 [1st Dept 2014] ["As the f

2024Similarly, the Appellate Division, First Department, has held that a plaintiff may be collaterally estopped from asserting claims of discrimination under Title VII, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law after previously challenging their termination in an Article 78 proceeding based on allegations of discrimination that were identical to those asserted in the plenary action ( Rosenthal v Roosevelt Island Operating Corp ., 221 AD3d 551 , 551—52 [1st Dept 2023]; Simmons-Grant v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP , 116 AD3d 134 , 139—40 [1st Dept 2014] ["As the f

2024Similarly, the Appellate Division, First Department, has held that a plaintiff may be collaterally estopped from asserting claims of discrimination under Title VII, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law after previously challenging their termination in an Article 78 proceeding based on allegations of discrimination that were identical to those asserted in the plenary action ( Rosenthal v Roosevelt Island Operating Corp ., 221 AD3d 551 , 551—52 [1st Dept 2023]; Simmons-Grant v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP , 116 AD3d 134 , 139—40 [1st Dept 2014] ["As the f

2024The doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion are equally applicable where the prior action was an Article 78 proceeding. "[W]here "an Article 78 determination has been made that an employee is not entitled to reinstatement to a governmental position, such determination is res judicata as to subsequent actions seeking, on different theories, reinstatement or damages for removal from the position" ( Thomas, 239 AD2d at 180—81; see also Miller v Livanis , 189 AD3d 446 , 447 [1st Dept 2020] [Plaintiff's action barred on the grounds of res judicata where it arose out of the same set of ci

2024The doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion are equally applicable where the prior action was an Article 78 proceeding. "[W]here "an Article 78 determination has been made that an employee is not entitled to reinstatement to a governmental position, such determination is res judicata as to subsequent actions seeking, on different theories, reinstatement or damages for removal from the position" ( Thomas, 239 AD2d at 180—81; see also Miller v Livanis , 189 AD3d 446 , 447 [1st Dept 2020] [Plaintiff's action barred on the grounds of res judicata where it arose out of the same set of ci

1977"The common-law doctrine of res judicata, designed to bar relitigation of adjudicated issues, is the law’s recognition of the fact that it is to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation” (Israel v Wood Dolson Co., 1 NY2d 116, 118 ; Matter of New York State Labor Relations Bd. v Holland Laundry, 294 NY 480, 493-494 ; see 9 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac, Judgments, § 63:197, p 198).

1977"The common-law doctrine of res judicata , designed to bar relitigation of adjudicated issues, is the law's recognition of the fact that it is to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation" ( Israel v Wood Dolson Co. , 1 N.Y.2d 116, 118 ; Matter of New York State Labor Relations Bd. v Holland Laundry , 294 N.Y. 480, 493-494 ; see 9 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac, Judgments, § 63:197, p 198).

1977An affirmance herein would mean that the utilization of inter-company arbitration panels would be potentially decreased materially (and the litigation in connection therewith forced upon the courts).” Fundamental to our consideration of the present appeal is recognition that in general the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion between the same parties (more familiarly referred to as res judicata or direct estoppel) 2 apply as well to awards in arbitration as they do to adjudications in judicial proceedings (Rembrandt Inds. v Hodges Int., 38 NY2d 502 ; New York Lbr. & Wood Working

1977An affirmance herein would mean that the utilization of intercompany arbitration panels would be potentially decreased materially (and the litigation in connection therewith forced upon the courts)." Fundamental to our consideration of the present appeal is recognition that in general the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion between the same parties (more familiarly referred to as res judicata or direct estoppel) [2] apply as well to awards in arbitration as they do to adjudications in *190 judicial proceedings ( Rembrandt Inds. v Hodges Int. , 38 N.Y.2d 502 ; New York Lbr. & Woo

1977An affirmance herein would mean that the utilization of inter-company arbitration panels would be potentially decreased materially (and the litigation in connection therewith forced upon the courts).” Fundamental to our consideration of the present appeal is recognition that in general the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion between the same parties (more familiarly referred to as res judicata or direct estoppel) 2 apply as well to awards in arbitration as they do to adjudications in judicial proceedings (Rembrandt Inds. v Hodges Int., 38 NY2d 502 ; New York Lbr. & Wood Working

1977An affirmance herein would mean that the utilization of intercompany arbitration panels would be potentially decreased materially (and the litigation in connection therewith forced upon the courts)." Fundamental to our consideration of the present appeal is recognition that in general the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion between the same parties (more familiarly referred to as res judicata or direct estoppel) [2] apply as well to awards in arbitration as they do to adjudications in *190 judicial proceedings ( Rembrandt Inds. v Hodges Int. , 38 N.Y.2d 502 ; New York Lbr. & Woo

1977An affirmance herein would mean that the utilization of inter-company arbitration panels would be potentially decreased materially (and the litigation in connection therewith forced upon the courts).” Fundamental to our consideration of the present appeal is recognition that in general the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion between the same parties (more familiarly referred to as res judicata or direct estoppel) 2 apply as well to awards in arbitration as they do to adjudications in judicial proceedings (Rembrandt Inds. v Hodges Int., 38 NY2d 502 ; New York Lbr. & Wood Working

1977An affirmance herein would mean that the utilization of intercompany arbitration panels would be potentially decreased materially (and the litigation in connection therewith forced upon the courts)." Fundamental to our consideration of the present appeal is recognition that in general the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion between the same parties (more familiarly referred to as res judicata or direct estoppel) [2] apply as well to awards in arbitration as they do to adjudications in *190 judicial proceedings ( Rembrandt Inds. v Hodges Int. , 38 N.Y.2d 502 ; New York Lbr. & Woo

1977"The common-law doctrine of res judicata, designed to bar relitigation of adjudicated issues, is the law’s recognition of the fact that it is to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation” (Israel v Wood Dolson Co., 1 NY2d 116, 118 ; Matter of New York State Labor Relations Bd. v Holland Laundry, 294 NY 480, 493-494 ; see 9 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac, Judgments, § 63:197, p 198).

1977"The common-law doctrine of res judicata , designed to bar relitigation of adjudicated issues, is the law's recognition of the fact that it is to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation" ( Israel v Wood Dolson Co. , 1 N.Y.2d 116, 118 ; Matter of New York State Labor Relations Bd. v Holland Laundry , 294 N.Y. 480, 493-494 ; see 9 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac, Judgments, § 63:197, p 198).

2010As a result, the doctrines of waiver and cure have no application here” (Raytsin, 6 Misc 3d at 49 ).

2002The Supreme Court correctly found that the defendant failed to show a voluntary relinquishment by the plaintiff wife of her entitlement to maintenance and child support (see, Matter of Dox v Tynon, 90 NY2d 166 ; Messina v Messina, 143 AD2d 735 ; cf., Matter of O’Connor v Curcio, 281 AD2d 100 ).

2002The Supreme Court correctly found that the defendant failed to show a voluntary relinquishment by the plaintiff wife of her entitlement to maintenance and child support (see, Matter of Dox v Tynon, 90 NY2d 166 ; Messina v Messina, 143 AD2d 735 ; cf., Matter of O’Connor v Curcio, 281 AD2d 100 ).

2002The Supreme Court correctly found that the defendant failed to show a voluntary relinquishment by the plaintiff wife of her entitlement to maintenance and child support (see, Matter of Dox v Tynon, 90 NY2d 166 ; Messina v Messina, 143 AD2d 735 ; cf., Matter of O’Connor v Curcio, 281 AD2d 100 ).

1996Cross movants have not presented any proof that the insurer voluntarily and intentionally relinquished a known right (Schiff Assocs. v Flack, 51 NY2d 692 ).

1995Because neither the parties nor the issues are identical to those in the prior action, the doctrines do not bar the present action (see, Hines v City of Buffalo, 79 AD2d 218, 220-221 ).

1989The lack of an adequate appellate record alone would warrant affirmance, even if the doctrines of waiver and forfeiture were inapplicable (cf., People v Donovon, 107 AD2d 433, 440-441 ).

1989Based on what little factual information is contained in the defendant’s motion papers, we find no conclusive proof that the defendant’s statutory or constitutional speedy trial rights were violated (cf., People v Friscia, 51 NY2d 845 ).

1984Finally, in Renwick v Town of Allegany (supra), the court also recognized the applicability of the doctrines of waiver and estoppel to the 30-day demand without adjustment period.

1984While we agree with the employer’s contention that the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion between the same parties apply as well to awards in arbitration as they do to adjudications injudicial proceedings (Matter of Ranni [Ross], 58 NY2d 715, 717 ; Matter of American Ins.

1984Co., 62 NY2d 494 ), apply to bar relitigation of claims or issues resolved in arbitration (Matter of American Ins.

1978Co. [Messinger], 43 NY2d 184 ) held that the determination of an arbitration in a property damage arbitration proceeding between two insurance carriers disallowing the disclaimer of coverage by one of them is bindng in a controversy between the same carriers in a subsequent personal injury action arising out of the same accident; also, therein stating (pp 189-190): "Fundamental to our consideration of the present appeal is recognition that in general the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion between the same parties (more familiarly referred to as res judicata or direct estoppel)

1938In McCarty v. Nostrand Lumber Co., Inc., No. 2 ( 232 App. Div. 63, 66 ) it was held that stockholders were competent to waive violation of section 15 of the Stock Corporation Law prohibiting the transfer of the property of a corporation to any of its stockholders for other than the full value paid in cash.