Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
20 New York opinions name it 5 courts 1964–2026 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Joseph v. Bank of N.Y. Mellongreen2 sentences2026Group, LLC v Grossman , 198 AD3d 956, 958 ). "'Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), a party may move [*2] to dismiss a [complaint] based on the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel'" ( Babad v Oratz , 242 AD3d 807 , 808, quoting Joseph v Bank of N.Y. Mellon , 219 AD3d 596, 597 ). "'Under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars future actions between the same parties on the same cause of action'" ( Sunny v Hossain , 236 AD3d 699 , 700, quoting Simmons v Trans Express Inc. , 37 NY3d 107 , 111). "'The doctrine of res judicata operates to preclude the reconsideration of c 2026"Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), a party may move to dismiss a [petition] based on the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel" ( Joseph v Bank of N.Y. Mellon , 219 AD3d 596, 597 ). | 2 | 5 |
Babad v. Oratzgreen2 sentences2026Group, LLC v Grossman , 198 AD3d 956, 958). "'Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), a party may move [*2] to dismiss a [complaint] based on the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel'" ( Babad v Oratz , 242 AD3d 807, 808, quoting Joseph v Bank of N.Y. Mellon , 219 AD3d 596, 597). "'Under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars future actions between the same parties on the same cause of action'" ( Sunny v Hossain , 236 AD3d 699, 700, quoting Simmons v Trans Express Inc. , 37 NY3d 107, 111). "'The doctrine of res judicata operates to preclude the reconsideration of claims 2026Group, LLC v Grossman , 198 AD3d 956, 958 ). "'Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), a party may move [*2] to dismiss a [complaint] based on the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel'" ( Babad v Oratz , 242 AD3d 807 , 808, quoting Joseph v Bank of N.Y. Mellon , 219 AD3d 596, 597 ). "'Under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars future actions between the same parties on the same cause of action'" ( Sunny v Hossain , 236 AD3d 699 , 700, quoting Simmons v Trans Express Inc. , 37 NY3d 107 , 111). "'The doctrine of res judicata operates to preclude the reconsideration of c | 1 | 2 |
Margerum v. City of Buffalogreen2 sentences2012“In the prior CPLR article 78 proceeding[, claimant] could not have sought the relief [he] seek[s] in this action” (Margerum v -2- 136 CA 11-00868 City of Buffalo, 63 AD3d 1574, 1580 ). 2012“In the prior CPLR article 78 proceeding^ claimant] could not have sought the relief [he] seek[s] in this action” (Margerum v City of Buffalo, 63 AD3d 1574, 1580 [2009]). | 1 | 2 |
Sunny v. Hossaingreen2 sentences2026Group, LLC v Grossman , 198 AD3d 956, 958). "'Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), a party may move [*2] to dismiss a [complaint] based on the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel'" ( Babad v Oratz , 242 AD3d 807, 808, quoting Joseph v Bank of N.Y. Mellon , 219 AD3d 596, 597). "'Under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars future actions between the same parties on the same cause of action'" ( Sunny v Hossain , 236 AD3d 699, 700, quoting Simmons v Trans Express Inc. , 37 NY3d 107, 111). "'The doctrine of res judicata operates to preclude the reconsideration of claims 2026Group, LLC v Grossman , 198 AD3d 956, 958 ). "'Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), a party may move [*2] to dismiss a [complaint] based on the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel'" ( Babad v Oratz , 242 AD3d 807 , 808, quoting Joseph v Bank of N.Y. Mellon , 219 AD3d 596, 597 ). "'Under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars future actions between the same parties on the same cause of action'" ( Sunny v Hossain , 236 AD3d 699 , 700, quoting Simmons v Trans Express Inc. , 37 NY3d 107 , 111). "'The doctrine of res judicata operates to preclude the reconsideration of c | 1 | 1 |
Charlene Simmons v. Trans Express Incgreen2 sentences2026Group, LLC v Grossman , 198 AD3d 956, 958). "'Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), a party may move [*2] to dismiss a [complaint] based on the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel'" ( Babad v Oratz , 242 AD3d 807, 808, quoting Joseph v Bank of N.Y. Mellon , 219 AD3d 596, 597). "'Under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars future actions between the same parties on the same cause of action'" ( Sunny v Hossain , 236 AD3d 699, 700, quoting Simmons v Trans Express Inc. , 37 NY3d 107, 111). "'The doctrine of res judicata operates to preclude the reconsideration of claims 2026Group, LLC v Grossman , 198 AD3d 956, 958 ). "'Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), a party may move [*2] to dismiss a [complaint] based on the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel'" ( Babad v Oratz , 242 AD3d 807 , 808, quoting Joseph v Bank of N.Y. Mellon , 219 AD3d 596, 597 ). "'Under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars future actions between the same parties on the same cause of action'" ( Sunny v Hossain , 236 AD3d 699 , 700, quoting Simmons v Trans Express Inc. , 37 NY3d 107 , 111). "'The doctrine of res judicata operates to preclude the reconsideration of c | 1 | 1 |
Jacobson Dev. Group, LLC v. Grossmangreen2 sentences2026Group, LLC v Grossman , 198 AD3d 956, 958). "'Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), a party may move [*2] to dismiss a [complaint] based on the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel'" ( Babad v Oratz , 242 AD3d 807, 808, quoting Joseph v Bank of N.Y. Mellon , 219 AD3d 596, 597). "'Under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars future actions between the same parties on the same cause of action'" ( Sunny v Hossain , 236 AD3d 699, 700, quoting Simmons v Trans Express Inc. , 37 NY3d 107, 111). "'The doctrine of res judicata operates to preclude the reconsideration of claims 2026Group, LLC v Grossman , 198 AD3d 956, 958 ). "'Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), a party may move [*2] to dismiss a [complaint] based on the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel'" ( Babad v Oratz , 242 AD3d 807 , 808, quoting Joseph v Bank of N.Y. Mellon , 219 AD3d 596, 597 ). "'Under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars future actions between the same parties on the same cause of action'" ( Sunny v Hossain , 236 AD3d 699 , 700, quoting Simmons v Trans Express Inc. , 37 NY3d 107 , 111). "'The doctrine of res judicata operates to preclude the reconsideration of c | 1 | 1 |
Gregg v. Lan Zhen Chengreen2 sentences2026Group, LLC v Grossman , 198 AD3d 956, 958). "'Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), a party may move [*2] to dismiss a [complaint] based on the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel'" ( Babad v Oratz , 242 AD3d 807, 808, quoting Joseph v Bank of N.Y. Mellon , 219 AD3d 596, 597). "'Under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars future actions between the same parties on the same cause of action'" ( Sunny v Hossain , 236 AD3d 699, 700, quoting Simmons v Trans Express Inc. , 37 NY3d 107, 111). "'The doctrine of res judicata operates to preclude the reconsideration of claims 2026Group, LLC v Grossman , 198 AD3d 956, 958 ). "'Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), a party may move [*2] to dismiss a [complaint] based on the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel'" ( Babad v Oratz , 242 AD3d 807 , 808, quoting Joseph v Bank of N.Y. Mellon , 219 AD3d 596, 597 ). "'Under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars future actions between the same parties on the same cause of action'" ( Sunny v Hossain , 236 AD3d 699 , 700, quoting Simmons v Trans Express Inc. , 37 NY3d 107 , 111). "'The doctrine of res judicata operates to preclude the reconsideration of c | 1 | 1 |
Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Allianz Risk Transfer AGgreen1 sentence2026"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" ( Babad v Oratz , 242 AD3d 807 , 808 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Paramount Pictures Corp. v Allianz Risk Transfer AG , 31 NY3d 64, 72-73 ). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Timperio v. Bronx-Lebanon Hosp.green1 sentence2024In other words, it would only the entry of a final judgment in the related action that could act as a bar, since “‘neither the verdict of a jury nor the findings of a court in a prior action upon the precise point involved in a subsequent action . . . constitute a bar, unless followed by a judgment based thereon, or into which the verdict or findings entered’” (Church v New York State Thruway Auth., 16 AD3d 808, 810 [3d Dept 2005], quoting Rudd v Cornell, 171 NY 114, 128-129 [1902]; see Peterson v Forkey, 50 AD2d 774, 774-775 [1st Dept 1975]; see also Matter of Timperio v Bronx-Lebanon Hosp., | 1 | 1 |
Rudd v. . Cornellgreen1 sentence2024In other words, it would only the entry of a final judgment in the related action that could act as a bar, since “‘neither the verdict of a jury nor the findings of a court in a prior action upon the precise point involved in a subsequent action . . . constitute a bar, unless followed by a judgment based thereon, or into which the verdict or findings entered’” (Church v New York State Thruway Auth., 16 AD3d 808, 810 [3d Dept 2005], quoting Rudd v Cornell, 171 NY 114, 128-129 [1902]; see Peterson v Forkey, 50 AD2d 774, 774-775 [1st Dept 1975]; see also Matter of Timperio v Bronx-Lebanon Hosp., | 1 | 1 |
Church v. New York State Thruway Authoritygreen1 sentence2024In other words, it would only the entry of a final judgment in the related action that could act as a bar, since “‘neither the verdict of a jury nor the findings of a court in a prior action upon the precise point involved in a subsequent action . . . constitute a bar, unless followed by a judgment based thereon, or into which the verdict or findings entered’” (Church v New York State Thruway Auth., 16 AD3d 808, 810 [3d Dept 2005], quoting Rudd v Cornell, 171 NY 114, 128-129 [1902]; see Peterson v Forkey, 50 AD2d 774, 774-775 [1st Dept 1975]; see also Matter of Timperio v Bronx-Lebanon Hosp., | 1 | 1 |
Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Trans Caribbean Airways, Inc.green1 sentence2024The court notes that, although Contreras has commenced a personal injury action against the City and Arias (see Contreras Jimenez v City of New York, et al, Supreme Court, Bronx County, Index No. 820033/2023), in which the issue of whether Arias was subject to a negligence or recklessness standard may be raised and, if the negligence standard is determined to be applicable, the apportionment of fault between Arias and Contreras may be disputed, a “‘final judgment on the merits’” is required to assert either the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel to bar this proceeding (Kilduff v D | 1 | 1 |
Peterson v. Forkeygreen1 sentence2024In other words, it would only the entry of a final judgment in the related action that could act as a bar, since “‘neither the verdict of a jury nor the findings of a court in a prior action upon the precise point involved in a subsequent action . . . constitute a bar, unless followed by a judgment based thereon, or into which the verdict or findings entered’” (Church v New York State Thruway Auth., 16 AD3d 808, 810 [3d Dept 2005], quoting Rudd v Cornell, 171 NY 114, 128-129 [1902]; see Peterson v Forkey, 50 AD2d 774, 774-775 [1st Dept 1975]; see also Matter of Timperio v Bronx-Lebanon Hosp., | 1 | 1 |
Kilduff v. Donna Oil Corp.green1 sentence2024The court notes that, although Contreras has commenced a personal injury action against the City and Arias (see Contreras Jimenez v City of New York, et al, Supreme Court, Bronx County, Index No. 820033/2023), in which the issue of whether Arias was subject to a negligence or recklessness standard may be raised and, if the negligence standard is determined to be applicable, the apportionment of fault between Arias and Contreras may be disputed, a “‘final judgment on the merits’” is required to assert either the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel to bar this proceeding (Kilduff v D | 1 | 1 |
Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Trans Caribbean Airways, Inc.green1 sentence2024The court notes that, although Contreras has commenced a personal injury action against the City and Arias (see Contreras Jimenez v City of New York, et al, Supreme Court, Bronx County, Index No. 820033/2023), in which the issue of whether Arias was subject to a negligence or recklessness standard may be raised and, if the negligence standard is determined to be applicable, the apportionment of fault between Arias and Contreras may be disputed, a “‘final judgment on the merits’” is required to assert either the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel to bar this proceeding (Kilduff v D | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Estate of Huntergreen1 sentence2016The propriety of the individual expenditures for the 2011 and 2012 budgets, which is the subject of this proceeding, was not decided, nor even at issue, in the prior action, nor could it have been raised there (see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]; see also Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449 , 455 [1985]). | 1 | 1 |
Lodal, Inc. v. Home Insurancegreen1 sentence2007Co., 309 AD2d 634, 634 [1st Dept 2003].) This rule is founded upon the belief that “ ‘it is for the interest of the community that a limit should be prescribed to litigation, and that the same cause of action ought not to be brought twice to a final determination. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re the Arbitration between Conforti & Eisele, Inc. & William J. Scully, Inc.
green
2 sentences1993Scully, Inc., 98 AD2d 646 [1st Dept 1983], lv denied 61 NY2d 606 ; Matter of Weinberger [Friedman], 41 AD2d 620 [1st Dept 1973]). 1985Scully, Inc.], 98 AD2d 646 ). | 2 | 1985–1993 |
Tracey v. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co.
green
1 sentence2023Trust Co. , 187 AD3d 815, 817 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Stevens v. Kirk
green
1 sentence1998Co., 65 NY2d 614 ; Siegel, NY Prac § 446)” (Stevens v Kirk, 171 AD2d 587 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
O'Connor v. G&R Packing Co.
green
1 sentence1996Consequently, since it cannot be conclusively determined upon which cause of action judgment was entered, it cannot be given a preclusive effect under either the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel (see generally, O’Connor v G & R Packing Co., 53 NY2d 278 ; Manard v Hardware Mut. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Cine-Source, Inc. v. Burrows
green
1 sentence1993It has been repeatedly held that the question of whether an arbitration is barred by the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel is one to be determined by the court and not the arbitrator (Matter of Cine-Source, Inc. v Burrows, 180 AD2d 592 [1st Dept 1992]; Matter of Conforti & Eisele v William J. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
In re the Arbitration between Weinberger & Friedman
green
1 sentence1993Scully, Inc., 98 AD2d 646 [1st Dept 1983], lv denied 61 NY2d 606 ; Matter of Weinberger [Friedman], 41 AD2d 620 [1st Dept 1973]). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Newsday, Inc. v. Ross
green
1 sentence1987Not having sought an article 78 review of the Board’s determination, defendant is, therefore, barred by the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel which applies to an issue decided in a prior judicial or administrative proceeding between parties (Matter of Newsday, Inc. v Ross, 80 AD2d 1 ). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Rembrandt Industries, Inc. v. Hodges International, Inc.
green
1 sentence1983To the contrary, the threshold issue of whether a claim sought to be arbitrated is barred under the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel by reason of the conduct of a prior arbitration proceeding between the parties is a matter to be determined by the court, not the arbitrator (see Rembrandt Inds. v Hodges Int., 38 NY2d 502 ; Firedoor Corp. v MacFarlandBldrs., 79 AD2d 356 ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Firedoor Corp. of America v. MacFarland Builders, Inc.
green
1 sentence1983To the contrary, the threshold issue of whether a claim sought to be arbitrated is barred under the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel by reason of the conduct of a prior arbitration proceeding between the parties is a matter to be determined by the court, not the arbitrator (see Rembrandt Inds. v Hodges Int., 38 NY2d 502 ; Firedoor Corp. v MacFarlandBldrs., 79 AD2d 356 ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
S. T. Grand, Inc. v. City of New York
green
1 sentence1975Grand, Inc. v City of New York, 32 NY2d 300, 304 .) While there is no question that LILCO had a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision of the court in Lotto v Long Is. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Vavolizza v. Krieger
green
1 sentence1975In order to invoke the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel, "there must be an identity of issue which has necessarily been decided in the prior action and is decisive of the present action and * * * there must have been a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now said to be controlling.” (Vavolizza v Krieger, 33 NY2d 351, 356 ; S. T. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v. B. & C. Nieberg Realty Corp.
green
1 sentence1968(Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v. Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 N. Y. 304 .) Therefore, in order to apply any doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel it must first be ascertained what issues were determined in the first action and then whether the determination of such issues necessarily precludes the bringing of this action. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Matter of Nash v. Brooks
green
1 sentence1964(Matter of Nash v. Brooks, 276 N. Y. 75 .) However, an administrative determination is effective only for the purpose for which it was made (Matter of Gibbs v. Wallin, 282 App. Div. 578 ) and the doctrine of res judicata does not apply as to issues not within the jurisdiction of the administrative agency (2 Am. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| Gibbs v. Wallin neutral | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.