transactional analysis in New York

2024"This State has adopted the transactional analysis approach in deciding res judicata issues... [O]nce a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy." O'Brien v. City of Syracuse , 54 NY2d 353, 357 (1981).

2023"Under 'the transactional analysis approach in deciding res judicata issues . . . once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy'" ( Mooney v Manhattan Occupational, Physical & Speech Therapies, PLLC , 166 AD3d 957 , 959, quoting O'Brien v City of Syracuse , 54 NY2d 353, 357 ).

2017Res judicata bars a party from litigating “a claim where a judgment on the merits exists from a prior action between the same parties involving the same subject matter.” (.Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005].) Res judicata generally precludes “claims actually litigated,” but also applies to “claims that could have been raised in the prior litigation.” (Id.) To determine whether a claim is barred by res judicata, our courts apply a transactional analysis approach which holds that “once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series

2000Under the transactional analysis approach to res judicata applied in this State, as a general rule a valid final judgment on a claim or claims precludes future litigation between the same parties of claims arising from the same causes of actions, i.e., the same transactions or series of transactions, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy (see, Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347 ; O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 ; Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185, 192-193 ; Matter of Reilly v Reid, 45 NY2d 24, 27 ).

2018Under "the transactional analysis approach in deciding res judicata issues . . . once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy" ( O'Brien v City of Syracuse , 54 NY2d 353, 357 ; see Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co. , 93 NY2d at 347 ; Bayer v City of New York , 115 AD3d 897, 899 ; Sandhu v Mercy Med.

2013Under “the transactional analysis approach in deciding res judicata issues . . . , once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy” (O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]; see Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d at 347 ).

2024Under the transactional analysis, the test is to determine whether a claim should be precluded by viewing a claim or cause of action as conterminous with the transaction, regardless of the number of substantive theories or variant forms of relief available to a litigant ( see Smith v Russell Sage Coll. , 54 NY2d 185, 192 [1981]).

2024Under the transactional analysis, the test is to determine whether a claim should be precluded by viewing a claim or cause of action as conterminous with the transaction, regardless of the number of substantive theories or variant forms of relief available to a litigant ( see Smith v Russell Sage Coll. , 54 NY2d 185, 192 [1981]).

1992The transactional analysis test applies to claims which " ' "are related in time, space, origin, or motivation * * * they form a convenient trial unit, and * * * their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties’ expectations or business understanding or usage” ’ ” (Gross v Glick, 183 AD2d 748 ; Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185, 192-193 , citing Restatement [Second] of Judgments §§ 61, 61.1 [Tent Draft Nos. 1, 5], currently Restatement [Second] of Judgments § 24 [2]; see also, Boronow v Boronow, 71 NY2d 284 ; Matter of Reilly v Reid, 45 NY2d 24 ).

1992Under the transactional analysis test adopted by the Court of Appeals, subsequent claims are barred if they are coterminous with the transaction or series of transactions from which the earlier claims arose, meaning that the facts upon which these claims are based " 'are related in time, space, origin, or motivation * * * they form a convenient trial unit, and * * * their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties’ expectations or business understanding or usage’ ” (Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185, 192-193 , citing Restatement [Second] of Judgments §§ 61, 61.1 [Tent Draft Nos. 1, 5],

2011“Under the transactional analysis approach to res judicata, ‘once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy’ ” (CRK Contr. of Suffolk v Brown & Assoc., 260 AD2d 530, 530 [1999], quoting O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]; see Silberstein, Awad & Miklos, P.C. v Spencer, Maston & McCarthy, LLP, 43 AD3d 902, 903 [2007]).

2005Under the transactional analysis approach to res judicata, “once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy” (O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]; see CRK Contr. of Suffolk v Brown & Assoc., supra at 530).

2022"Under the transactional analysis approach to this doctrine, 'once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy'" ( id. , quoting Matter of Josey v Goord , 9 NY3d at 389-390 ; [*2] accord Matter of Gustus v Fischer , 64 AD3d at 1035 ).

2020Under the transactional analysis approach to this doctrine, "once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy" ( Matter of Josey v Goord , 9 NY3d at 389-390 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Matter of Gustus v Fischer , 64 AD3d at 1035 ).

2025Paramount Pictures Corporation v. Allianz Risk Transfer AG, 31 N.Y.3d 64, 83 [2018].

2024The analysis embraces a broadened view of the scope of a claim in order to limit the number of possible actions arising out of a single controversy ( see Paramount Pictures Corp. v Allianz Risk Transfer AG , 31 NY3d 64, 74-76 [2018]).

2024Footnote 2: As to Eni S.p.A.'s contention that it should not be precluded from litigating the DA counterclaim and the PDA action because they were not subject to mandatory arbitration, that fact is not dispositive under the transactional test ( see Marinelli Assoc. v Helmsley-Noyes Co. , 265 AD2d 1, 8-9 [1st Dept 2000] [finding that even though the claims in the second action brought in Supreme Court could not have been brought in the prior arbitration, they were still barred by claim preclusion because the plaintiff was seeking relief "for harm arising out of the same or related facts such as

2024Footnote 2: As to Eni S.p.A.'s contention that it should not be precluded from litigating the DA counterclaim and the PDA action because they were not subject to mandatory arbitration, that fact is not dispositive under the transactional test ( see Marinelli Assoc. v Helmsley-Noyes Co. , 265 AD2d 1, 8-9 [1st Dept 2000] [finding that even though the claims in the second action brought in Supreme Court could not have been brought in the prior arbitration, they were still barred by claim preclusion because the plaintiff was seeking relief "for harm arising out of the same or related facts such as

2020Under the transactional analysis approach, "once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy" ( id. [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Maki v Bassett Healthcare , 141 AD3d 979, 981 [2016], appeal dismissed, lv dismissed and lv denied 28 NY3d 1130 [2017]). "[R]es judicata bars not only those claims that were actually litigated previously, but also those which might have been raised in the former action" ( Bernstein v S

2019New York has adopted the transactional analysis approach to res judicata, so that once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims between the same parties or those in privity with them arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy ( see Matter of Josey v Goord, 9 NY3d at 389-390 ; Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d at 269 ; O'Brien v City of Syracuse , 54 NY2d 353, 357 ; Greenstone/Fontana Corp. v Feldstein , 72 AD3d 890, 893 ).

2022"Under the transactional analysis approach to this doctrine, 'once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy'" ( id. , quoting Matter of Josey v Goord , 9 NY3d at 389-390 ; [*2] accord Matter of Gustus v Fischer , 64 AD3d at 1035 ).

2020Under the transactional analysis approach to this doctrine, "once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy" ( Matter of Josey v Goord , 9 NY3d at 389-390 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Matter of Gustus v Fischer , 64 AD3d at 1035 ).

1992(Supra.) Chief Judge Cardozo summed up the classic principle of the res judicata doctrine in Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp. ( 250 NY 304, 306-307 [1929]) in this way: "A judgment in one action is conclusive in a later one not only as to any matters actually litigated therein, but also as to any that might have been so litigated, when the two causes of action have such a measure of identity that a different judgment in the second would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the first.” Judge Fuchsberg, writing for an unanimous Court in Smith v Russell Sage Coll. (54

1982It has long been the rule that: “A judgment in one action is conclusive in a later one not only as to any matters actually litigated therein, but also as to any that might have been so litigated, when the two causes of action have such a measure of identity that a different judgment in the second would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the first (Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U. S. 351 ; Reich v. Cochran [ 151 NY 122 ], supra).” (Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304, 306-307 .) The Court of Appeals has recently refined this policy in O’Brien v City of Syr

2020Under the transactional analysis approach, "once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy" ( id. [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Maki v Bassett Healthcare , 141 AD3d 979, 981 [2016], appeal dismissed, lv dismissed and lv denied 28 NY3d 1130 [2017]). "[R]es judicata bars not only those claims that were actually litigated previously, but also those which might have been raised in the former action" ( Bernstein v S

2020Under the transactional analysis approach, "once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy" ( id. [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Maki v Bassett Healthcare , 141 AD3d 979, 981 [2016], appeal dismissed, lv dismissed and lv denied 28 NY3d 1130 [2017]). "[R]es judicata bars not only those claims that were actually litigated previously, but also those which might have been raised in the former action" ( Bernstein v S

2020Under the transactional analysis approach, "once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy" ( id. [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Maki v Bassett Healthcare , 141 AD3d 979, 981 [2016], appeal dismissed, lv dismissed and lv denied 28 NY3d 1130 [2017]). "[R]es judicata bars not only those claims that were actually litigated previously, but also those which might have been raised in the former action" ( Bernstein v S

2018Fed. 829 , § 2[a]; see also Nevada , 463 U.S. at 130 n. 12, 103 S.Ct. 2906 ; Conway, 60 U Chi L Rev at 145 n 23 ; Restatement [Second] of Judgments § 24, Comment a ). 7 *747 ***78 As articulated by the Second Circuit, "[w]hether or not the first judgment will have preclusive effect depends in part on whether the same transaction or series of transactions is at issue, whether the same evidence is needed to support both claims, and whether the facts essential to the second were present in the first" ( Monahan , 214 F.3d at 285 ; see also Ross , 486 F.3d at 283 ).

2018Fed. 829 , § 2[a]; see also Nevada , 463 U.S. at 130 n. 12, 103 S.Ct. 2906 ; Conway, 60 U Chi L Rev at 145 n 23 ; Restatement [Second] of Judgments § 24, Comment a ). 7 *747 ***78 As articulated by the Second Circuit, "[w]hether or not the first judgment will have preclusive effect depends in part on whether the same transaction or series of transactions is at issue, whether the same evidence is needed to support both claims, and whether the facts essential to the second were present in the first" ( Monahan , 214 F.3d at 285 ; see also Ross , 486 F.3d at 283 ).

2011“Under the transactional analysis approach to res judicata, ‘once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy’ ” (CRK Contr. of Suffolk v Brown & Assoc., 260 AD2d 530, 530 [1999], quoting O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]; see Silberstein, Awad & Miklos, P.C. v Spencer, Maston & McCarthy, LLP, 43 AD3d 902, 903 [2007]).