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.
10 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1999–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Parker v. Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co.green2 sentences2020The plaintiff appeals. "[W]here a plaintiff in a later action brings a claim for damages that could have been presented in a prior CPLR article 78 proceeding against the same party, based upon the same harm and arising out of the same or related facts, the claim is barred by res judicata" ( Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co. , 93 NY2d 343, 347-348 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Williams v City of Yonkers , 160 AD3d 1017 , 1018; Matter of Carter v Walt Whitman N.Y. 2018Hosp., 155 AD3d 598 ; Parolisi v Slavin, 98 AD3d 488, 489 ). "[W]here a plaintiff in a later action brings a claim for damages that could have been presented in a prior CPLR article 78 proceeding against the same party, based upon the same harm and arising out of the same or related facts, the claim is barred by res judicata" ( Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347-348 ; see Ehrlich v Incorporated Vil. of Sea Cliff, 95 AD3d 1068, 1069 ; Pauk v Board of Trustees of City Univ. of N.Y., 111 AD2d 17 , 20-21 , affd 68 NY2d 702 ). "[A] dismissal on the ground of the statute of limit | 5 | 9 |
In Re the Estate of Huntergreen2 sentences2014Thus, where those requirements have been met, if “a plaintiff in a later action brings a claim for damages that could have been presented in a prior [action] against the same party, based upon the same harm and arising out of the same or related facts, the claim is barred by res judicata” (Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d at 347-348 [emphases added]; see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]; See Why Gerard, LLC v Gramro Entertainment Corp., 94 AD3d 1205, 1207 [2012]; Rowley, Forrest, O’Donnell & Beaumont, P.C. v Beechnut Nutrition Corp., 55 AD3d 982, 984 [2008]). 2014Thus, where those requirements have been met, if “a plaintiff in a later action brings a claim for damages that could have been presented in a prior [action] against the same party, based upon the same harm and arising out of the same or related facts, the claim is barred by res judicata” (Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d at 347-348 [emphases added]; see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]; See Why Gerard, LLC v Gramro Entertainment Corp., 94 AD3d 1205, 1207 [2012]; Rowley, Forrest, O’Donnell & Beaumont, P.C. v Beechnut Nutrition Corp., 55 AD3d 982, 984 [2008]). | 3 | 3 |
Rowley v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp.green2 sentences2014Thus, where those requirements have been met, if “a plaintiff in a later action brings a claim for damages that could have been presented in a prior [action] against the same party, based upon the same harm and arising out of the same or related facts, the claim is barred by res judicata” (Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d at 347-348 [emphases added]; see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]; See Why Gerard, LLC v Gramro Entertainment Corp., 94 AD3d 1205, 1207 [2012]; Rowley, Forrest, O’Donnell & Beaumont, P.C. v Beechnut Nutrition Corp., 55 AD3d 982, 984 [2008]). 2014Thus, where those requirements have been met, if “a plaintiff in a later action brings a claim for damages that could have been presented in a prior [action] against the same party, based upon the same harm and arising out of the same or related facts, the claim is barred by res judicata” (Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d at 347-348 [emphases added]; see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]; See Why Gerard, LLC v Gramro Entertainment Corp., 94 AD3d 1205, 1207 [2012]; Rowley, Forrest, O’Donnell & Beaumont, P.C. v Beechnut Nutrition Corp., 55 AD3d 982, 984 [2008]). | 3 | 3 |
Stoner v. Culligan, Inc.green2 sentences2014Stated another way, “when a plaintiff brings an action for only part of his [or her] cause of action, the judgment obtained in that action precludes him [or her] from bringing a second action for the residue of the claim” (Stoner v Culligan, Inc., 32 AD2d 170, 171-172 [1969]; see Sannon-Stamm Assoc., Inc. v Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., 68 AD3d 678, 678 [2009]; Lanuto v Constantine, 215 AD2d 946, 947 [1995]). 2014Stated another way, “when a plaintiff brings an action for only part of his [or her] cause of action, the judgment obtained in that action precludes him [or her] from bringing a second action for the residue of the claim” (Stoner v Culligan, Inc., 32 AD2d 170, 171-172 [1969]; see Sannon-Stamm Assoc., Inc. v Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., 68 AD3d 678, 678 [2009]; Lanuto v Constantine, 215 AD2d 946, 947 [1995]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Stanleygreen2 sentences2014Stated another way, “when a plaintiff brings an action for only part of his [or her] cause of action, the judgment obtained in that action precludes him [or her] from bringing a second action for the residue of the claim” (Stoner v Culligan, Inc., 32 AD2d 170, 171-172 [1969]; see Sannon-Stamm Assoc., Inc. v Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., 68 AD3d 678, 678 [2009]; Lanuto v Constantine, 215 AD2d 946, 947 [1995]). 2014Stated another way, “when a plaintiff brings an action for only part of his [or her] cause of action, the judgment obtained in that action precludes him [or her] from bringing a second action for the residue of the claim” (Stoner v Culligan, Inc., 32 AD2d 170, 171-172 [1969]; see Sannon-Stamm Assoc., Inc. v Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., 68 AD3d 678, 678 [2009]; Lanuto v Constantine, 215 AD2d 946, 947 [1995]). | 3 | 3 |
See Why Gerard, LLC v. Gramro Entertainment Corp.green2 sentences2014Thus, where those requirements have been met, if “a plaintiff in a later action brings a claim for damages that could have been presented in a prior [action] against the same party, based upon the same harm and arising out of the same or related facts, the claim is barred by res judicata” (Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d at 347-348 [emphases added]; see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]; See Why Gerard, LLC v Gramro Entertainment Corp., 94 AD3d 1205, 1207 [2012]; Rowley, Forrest, O’Donnell & Beaumont, P.C. v Beechnut Nutrition Corp., 55 AD3d 982, 984 [2008]). 2014Thus, where those requirements have been met, if “a plaintiff in a later action brings a claim for damages that could have been presented in a prior [action] against the same party, based upon the same harm and arising out of the same or related facts, the claim is barred by res judicata” (Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d at 347-348 [emphases added]; see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]; See Why Gerard, LLC v Gramro Entertainment Corp., 94 AD3d 1205, 1207 [2012]; Rowley, Forrest, O’Donnell & Beaumont, P.C. v Beechnut Nutrition Corp., 55 AD3d 982, 984 [2008]). | 3 | 3 |
Lanuto v. Constantinegreen2 sentences2014Stated another way, “when a plaintiff brings an action for only part of his [or her] cause of action, the judgment obtained in that action precludes him [or her] from bringing a second action for the residue of the claim” (Stoner v Culligan, Inc., 32 AD2d 170, 171-172 [1969]; see Sannon-Stamm Assoc., Inc. v Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., 68 AD3d 678, 678 [2009]; Lanuto v Constantine, 215 AD2d 946, 947 [1995]). 2014Stated another way, “when a plaintiff brings an action for only part of his [or her] cause of action, the judgment obtained in that action precludes him [or her] from bringing a second action for the residue of the claim” (Stoner v Culligan, Inc., 32 AD2d 170, 171-172 [1969]; see Sannon-Stamm Assoc., Inc. v Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., 68 AD3d 678, 678 [2009]; Lanuto v Constantine, 215 AD2d 946, 947 [1995]). | 3 | 3 |
Ehrlich v. Incorporated Village of Sea Cliffgreen1 sentence2018Hosp., 155 AD3d 598 ; Parolisi v Slavin, 98 AD3d 488, 489 ). "[W]here a plaintiff in a later action brings a claim for damages that could have been presented in a prior CPLR article 78 proceeding against the same party, based upon the same harm and arising out of the same or related facts, the claim is barred by res judicata" ( Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347-348 ; see Ehrlich v Incorporated Vil. of Sea Cliff, 95 AD3d 1068, 1069 ; Pauk v Board of Trustees of City Univ. of N.Y., 111 AD2d 17 , 20-21 , affd 68 NY2d 702 ). "[A] dismissal on the ground of the statute of limit | 1 | 1 |
Xiao Yang Chen v. Fischergreen1 sentence2007Thus, where a plaintiff in a later action brings a claim for damages that could have been presented in a prior CPLR article 78 proceeding against the same party, based upon the same harm and arising out of the same or related facts, the claim is barred by res judicata (Pauk v Board of Trustees, 111 AD2d 17, 20-21 , affd 68 NY2d 702 ).” (Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347-348 [1999].) However, it must be noted that the Court of Appeals has observed that “[i]t is not always clear whether particular claims are part of the same transaction for res judicata purposes.” (Xiao Yang | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pauk v. BD. OF TRS. OF THE CITY UNIV. OF NEW YORK
green
2 sentences2018Hosp., 155 AD3d 598 ; Parolisi v Slavin, 98 AD3d 488, 489 ). "[W]here a plaintiff in a later action brings a claim for damages that could have been presented in a prior CPLR article 78 proceeding against the same party, based upon the same harm and arising out of the same or related facts, the claim is barred by res judicata" ( Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347-348 ; see Ehrlich v Incorporated Vil. of Sea Cliff, 95 AD3d 1068, 1069 ; Pauk v Board of Trustees of City Univ. of N.Y., 111 AD2d 17 , 20-21 , affd 68 NY2d 702 ). "[A] dismissal on the ground of the statute of limit 2007Thus, where a plaintiff in a later action brings a claim for damages that could have been presented in a prior CPLR article 78 proceeding against the same party, based upon the same harm and arising out of the same or related facts, the claim is barred by res judicata (Pauk v Board of Trustees, 111 AD2d 17, 20-21 , affd 68 NY2d 702 ).” (Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347-348 [1999].) However, it must be noted that the Court of Appeals has observed that “[i]t is not always clear whether particular claims are part of the same transaction for res judicata purposes.” (Xiao Yang | 3 | 1999–2018 |
Pauk v. Board of Trustees
green
2 sentences2018Hosp., 155 AD3d 598 ; Parolisi v Slavin, 98 AD3d 488, 489 ). "[W]here a plaintiff in a later action brings a claim for damages that could have been presented in a prior CPLR article 78 proceeding against the same party, based upon the same harm and arising out of the same or related facts, the claim is barred by res judicata" ( Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347-348 ; see Ehrlich v Incorporated Vil. of Sea Cliff, 95 AD3d 1068, 1069 ; Pauk v Board of Trustees of City Univ. of N.Y., 111 AD2d 17 , 20-21 , affd 68 NY2d 702 ). "[A] dismissal on the ground of the statute of limit 2007Thus, where a plaintiff in a later action brings a claim for damages that could have been presented in a prior CPLR article 78 proceeding against the same party, based upon the same harm and arising out of the same or related facts, the claim is barred by res judicata (Pauk v Board of Trustees, 111 AD2d 17, 20-21 , affd 68 NY2d 702 ).” (Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347-348 [1999].) However, it must be noted that the Court of Appeals has observed that “[i]t is not always clear whether particular claims are part of the same transaction for res judicata purposes.” (Xiao Yang | 3 | 1999–2018 |
Parolisi v. Slavin
green
1 sentence2018Hosp., 155 AD3d 598 ; Parolisi v Slavin, 98 AD3d 488, 489 ). "[W]here a plaintiff in a later action brings a claim for damages that could have been presented in a prior CPLR article 78 proceeding against the same party, based upon the same harm and arising out of the same or related facts, the claim is barred by res judicata" ( Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347-348 ; see Ehrlich v Incorporated Vil. of Sea Cliff, 95 AD3d 1068, 1069 ; Pauk v Board of Trustees of City Univ. of N.Y., 111 AD2d 17 , 20-21 , affd 68 NY2d 702 ). "[A] dismissal on the ground of the statute of limit | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Burgos v. New York Presbyterian Hospital
green
1 sentence2018Hosp., 155 AD3d 598 ; Parolisi v Slavin, 98 AD3d 488, 489 ). "[W]here a plaintiff in a later action brings a claim for damages that could have been presented in a prior CPLR article 78 proceeding against the same party, based upon the same harm and arising out of the same or related facts, the claim is barred by res judicata" ( Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347-348 ; see Ehrlich v Incorporated Vil. of Sea Cliff, 95 AD3d 1068, 1069 ; Pauk v Board of Trustees of City Univ. of N.Y., 111 AD2d 17 , 20-21 , affd 68 NY2d 702 ). "[A] dismissal on the ground of the statute of limit | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Chin v. Interboro Petroleum Transporter, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2017New York City Civil Court Act § 1808 does not divest the small claims judgment of its res judicata, or claim preclusion, effect (Chin v Interboro Petroleum Transporter, Inc., 28 Misc 3d 78 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]). “[W]here a plaintiff in a later action brings a claim for damages that could have been presented in a prior . . . proceeding against the same party, based upon the same harm and arising out of the same or related facts, the claim is barred by res judicata” (Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347-348 [1999]). | 1 | 2017–2017 |