56 New York opinions name it 9 courts 1886–2026 22 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v. B. & C. Nieberg Realty Corp.green2 sentences2024The doctrine of res judicata generally requires a final adjudication of a claim on the merits and precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions ( see Matter of Hunter , 4 NY3d 260 [2005]; Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp. , 250 NY 304 [1929]; Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 140 AD3d 912 [2016]; Quality Health Supply Corp. v Hertz Co. , 68 Misc 3d 131[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50996[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]). 2024The doctrine of res judicata generally requires a final adjudication of a claim on the merits and precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions ( see Matter of Hunter , 4 NY3d 260 [2005]; Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp. , 250 NY 304 [1929]; Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 140 AD3d 912 [2016]; Quality Health Supply Corp. v Hertz Co. , 68 Misc 3d 131[A] , 2020 NY Slip Op 50996[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]). | 14 | 17 |
In Re the Estate of Huntergreen2 sentences2024The doctrine of res judicata generally requires a final adjudication of a claim on the merits and precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions ( see Matter of Hunter , 4 NY3d 260 [2005]; Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp. , 250 NY 304 [1929]; Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 140 AD3d 912 [2016]; Quality Health Supply Corp. v Hertz Co. , 68 Misc 3d 131[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50996[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]). 2024The doctrine of res judicata generally requires a final adjudication of a claim on the merits and precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions ( see Matter of Hunter , 4 NY3d 260 [2005]; Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp. , 250 NY 304 [1929]; Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 140 AD3d 912 [2016]; Quality Health Supply Corp. v Hertz Co. , 68 Misc 3d 131[A] , 2020 NY Slip Op 50996[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]). | 14 | 15 |
Ciraldo v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.green2 sentences2025"Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final adjudication of a claim on the merits precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions by a party or those in privity with a party" ( Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 140 AD3d 912, 913 ; see Eaddy v US Bank N.A. , 180 AD3d 756, 758 ). 2024The doctrine of res judicata generally requires a final adjudication of a claim on the merits and precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions ( see Matter of Hunter , 4 NY3d 260 [2005]; Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp. , 250 NY 304 [1929]; Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 140 AD3d 912 [2016]; Quality Health Supply Corp. v Hertz Co. , 68 Misc 3d 131[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50996[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]). | 11 | 20 |
Eaddy v. U.S. Bank N.A.green2 sentences2025"Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final adjudication of a claim on the merits precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions by a party or those in privity with a party" ( Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 140 AD3d 912, 913 ; see Eaddy v US Bank N.A. , 180 AD3d 756, 758 ). 2023"Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final adjudication of a claim on the merits precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions by a party or those in privity with a party" ( Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 140 AD3d 912, 913 ; Eaddy v US Bank N.A. , 180 AD3d 756, 758 [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 5 | 5 |
Djoganopoulos v. Polkesgreen2 sentences2024"Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final adjudication of a claim on the merits precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions by a party or those in privity with a party" ( Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 140 AD3d 912, 913 ; see Djoganopoulos v Polkes , 67 AD3d 726, 727 ). 2023However, res judicata only applies where there has been a final adjudication of a claim on the merits ( see Hymowitz v Nguyen , 209 AD3d 997, 998 ; Djoganopoulos v Polkes , 67 AD3d 726, 727 ). | 4 | 8 |
Tracey v. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co.green2 sentences2023Trust Co. , 187 AD3d 815, 817 [2020], quoting Eaddy v US Bank N.A. ,180 AD3d 756, 758 [2020]; see North Val. 2022"Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final adjudication of a claim on the merits precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions by a party or those in privity with a party" ( Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 140 AD3d 912, 913-914 [2016]; see Matter of Hunter , 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]; Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp. , 250 NY 304, 306-307 [1929]). " 'A judgment by default that has not been vacated is conclusive for res judicata purposes and encompasses the issues that were raised or could have been raised in | 3 | 3 |
Dupps v. Betancourtgreen2 sentences2024"A judgment of foreclosure and sale entered against a defendant is final as to all questions at issue between the parties, and concludes [*2]all matters of defense which were or might have been raised in the foreclosure action" ( Jones v Flushing Bank , 212 AD3d 791, 793 ; see Dupps v Betancourt , 121 AD3d 746, 747 ). 2020"A judgment of foreclosure and sale is final as to all questions at issue between the parties, and concludes all matters of defense which were or could have been litigated in the foreclosure action" ( Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 140 AD3d at 913 ; see SSJ Dev. of Sheepshead Bay I, LLC v Amalgamated Bank , 128 AD3d 674, 675 ; Dupps v Betancourt , 121 AD3d 746, 747 ). | 2 | 4 |
Vitale v. Buttafuoco & Associatesgreen2 sentences2020Corp. v Lopez , 46 NY2d 481, 485 ; Winkler v Weiss , 294 AD2d 428 ). 2009Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 485 [1979]; see also Winkler v Weiss, 294 AD2d 428 [2002]). | 2 | 3 |
SSJ Development of Sheepshead Bay I, LLC v. Amalgamated Bankgreen2 sentences2020"A judgment of foreclosure and sale is final as to all questions at issue between the parties, and concludes all matters of defense which were or could have been litigated in the foreclosure action" ( Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 140 AD3d at 913 ; see SSJ Dev. of Sheepshead Bay I, LLC v Amalgamated Bank , 128 AD3d 674, 675 ; Dupps v Betancourt , 121 AD3d 746, 747 ). 2017“A judgment of foreclosure and sale is final as to all questions at issue between the parties, and concludes all matters of defense which were or could have been litigated in the foreclosure action” (Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 140 AD3d at 913 ; see SSJ Dev. of Sheepshead Bay I, LLC v Amalgamated Bank, 128 AD3d 674, 675 [2015]; Dupps v Betancourt, 121 AD3d 746, 747 [2014]). | 2 | 3 |
Facebook, Inc. v. DLA Piper LLP (US)green2 sentences2025"The plaintiff, in asserting a cause of action for malicious prosecution, must allege not only that the prior action was commenced for a purpose other than the adjudication of the claim, but that there was 'an entire lack of probable cause in the prior proceeding'" ( Kaufman v Kaufman , 206 AD3d at 808 , quoting Engel v CBS, Inc. , 93 NY2d 195, 204 ; see Facebook, Inc. v DLA Piper LLP [US] , 134 AD3d 610, 613 ). 2022The plaintiff, in asserting a cause of action for malicious prosecution, must allege not only that the prior action was commenced for a purpose other than the adjudication of the claim, but that there was "an entire lack of probable cause in the prior proceeding" ( Engel v CBS, Inc. , 93 NY2d 195, 204 ; see Facebook, Inc. v DLA Piper LLP [US] , 134 AD3d 610, 614 ). | 2 | 2 |
Claim of Cruz v. New Millennium Construction & Restoration Corp.green2 sentences2016Here, because neither the Board, claimant, nor the Uninsured Employers’ Fund — nor anyone in privity with them — was a party to the federal declaratory judgment action between the carrier and JEC, we find that the Board correctly determined that the default judgment in that action had no collateral estoppel or res judicata effect on the Board’s adjudication of the claim involved in this proceeding (see Matter of Cruz v New Millennium Constr. & Restoration Corp., 17 AD3d 19, 21 [2005]). 2016Here, because neither the Board, claimant, nor the Uninsured Employers’ Fund — nor anyone in privity with them — was a party to the federal declaratory judgment action between the carrier and JEC, we find that the Board correctly determined that the default judgment in that action had no collateral estoppel or res judicata effect on the Board’s adjudication of the claim involved in this proceeding (see Matter of Cruz v New Millennium Constr. & Restoration Corp., 17 AD3d 19, 21 [2005]). | 2 | 2 |
Sclafani v. Story Book Homes, Inc.green2 sentences2020"Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final adjudication of a claim on the merits precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions by a party or those in privity with a party" ( Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 140 AD3d 912, 913 ; see Djoganopoulos v Polkes , 67 AD3d 726, 727 ; Sclafani v Story Book Homes , 294 AD2d 559, 559 ). 2017“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final adjudication of a claim on the merits precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions by a party or those in privity with a party” (Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 140 AD3d 912, 913 [2016]; see Djoganopoulos v Polkes, 67 AD3d 726, 727 [2009]; Sclafani v Story Book Homes, 294 AD2d 559, 559 [2002]). | 1 | 3 |
Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v. Lopezgreen2 sentences2020Corp. v Lopez , 46 NY2d 481, 485 ; Winkler v Weiss , 294 AD2d 428 ). 2009Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 485 [1979]; see also Winkler v Weiss, 294 AD2d 428 [2002]). | 1 | 3 |
Kaufman v. Kaufmangreen2 sentences2025"The plaintiff, in asserting a cause of action for malicious prosecution, must allege not only that the prior action was commenced for a purpose other than the adjudication of the claim, but that there was 'an entire lack of probable cause in the prior proceeding'" ( Kaufman v Kaufman , 206 AD3d at 808 , quoting Engel v CBS, Inc. , 93 NY2d 195, 204 ; see Facebook, Inc. v DLA Piper LLP [US] , 134 AD3d 610, 613 ). 2025"The absence of probable cause must also be patent" ( Kaufman v Kaufman , 206 AD3d at 808 ). | 1 | 2 |
Butler v. Ratnergreen2 sentences2022The absence of probable cause must also be patent ( see Facebook, Inc. v DLA Piper LLP [US] , 134 AD3d at 614 ; Butler v Ratner , 210 AD2d 691, 693 ). 2015Moreover, the lack of probable cause must be “patent” (Butler v Ratner, 210 AD2d 691, 693 [3d Dept 1994], lv dismissed 85 NY2d 924 [1995]). | 1 | 2 |
Polanco v. Stategreen2 sentences2026As such, the Court of Claims properly granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction ( see Pratow Corp. v State of New York , 148 AD3d at 1066 ; see also Polanco v State of New York , 130 AD3d at 1495 ; Davis v State of New York , 129 AD3d at 1354 ). 2026As such, the Court of Claims properly granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction ( see Pratow Corp. v State of New York , 148 AD3d at 1066; see also Polanco v State of New York , 130 AD3d at 1495; Davis v State of New York , 129 AD3d at 1354). | 1 | 1 |
Pratow Corp. v. State of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2026As such, the Court of Claims properly granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction ( see Pratow Corp. v State of New York , 148 AD3d at 1066 ; see also Polanco v State of New York , 130 AD3d at 1495 ; Davis v State of New York , 129 AD3d at 1354 ). 2026As such, the Court of Claims properly granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction ( see Pratow Corp. v State of New York , 148 AD3d at 1066; see also Polanco v State of New York , 130 AD3d at 1495; Davis v State of New York , 129 AD3d at 1354). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. State of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2026As such, the Court of Claims properly granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction ( see Pratow Corp. v State of New York , 148 AD3d at 1066 ; see also Polanco v State of New York , 130 AD3d at 1495 ; Davis v State of New York , 129 AD3d at 1354 ). 2026As such, the Court of Claims properly granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction ( see Pratow Corp. v State of New York , 148 AD3d at 1066; see also Polanco v State of New York , 130 AD3d at 1495; Davis v State of New York , 129 AD3d at 1354). | 1 | 1 |
MATTER OF JUAN C. v. Cortinesgreen2 sentences2025As relevant here, parties in privity to parties of record in the prior action may include, "those who are successors to a property interest, those who control an action although not formal parties to it, those whose interests are represented by a party to the action, and possibly coparties to a prior action." Juan C. v Cortines , 89 NY2d 659, 667-668 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2025As relevant here, parties in privity to parties of record in the prior action may include, "those who are successors to a property interest, those who control an action although not formal parties to it, those whose interests are represented by a party to the action, and possibly coparties to a prior action." Juan C. v Cortines , 89 NY2d 659, 667-668 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
In re Alamgir A.green1 sentence2024Med Ctr. o.fQueens, I 81 AD3d 937,938 [2d Dept 20201, quoting Djoganopouios v Polkes, 67 AD3d 726, 727 [2d Dept 2009]). | 1 | 1 |
Savory v. Wells Fargo Bank, NAgreen1 sentence2023"A judgment of foreclosure and sale is final as to all questions at issue between the parties, and concludes all matters of defense which were or could have been litigated in the foreclosure action" ( Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 140 AD3d at 913 ; see Savory v Wells Fargo Bank, NA , 202 AD3d 1019, 1020 ). | 1 | 1 |
Luscher v. Arruagreen1 sentence2019"Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final adjudication of a claim on the merits precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions by a party or those in privity with a party" ( Djoganopoulos v Polkes , 67 AD3d 726, 727 ; see Luscher v Arrua , 21 AD3d 1005, 1006 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Carver v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of New York v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Burt v. . Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Padillagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lamont v. Travelers Insurancegreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lazides v. P & G Enterprises
green
2 sentences2024It is well settled that default judgments, which have not been vacated, can have res judicata effect ( see Lazides v P & G Enters. , 58 AD3d 607 [2009]; Matter of Allstate Ins. 2024It is well settled that default judgments, which have not been vacated, can have res judicata effect ( see Lazides v P & G Enters. , 58 AD3d 607 [2009]; Matter of Allstate Ins. | 4 | 2019–2024 |
Engel v. CBS, INC.
green
2 sentences2025"The plaintiff, in asserting a cause of action for malicious prosecution, must allege not only that the prior action was commenced for a purpose other than the adjudication of the claim, but that there was 'an entire lack of probable cause in the prior proceeding'" ( Kaufman v Kaufman , 206 AD3d at 808 , quoting Engel v CBS, Inc. , 93 NY2d 195, 204 ; see Facebook, Inc. v DLA Piper LLP [US] , 134 AD3d 610, 613 ). 2022The plaintiff, in asserting a cause of action for malicious prosecution, must allege not only that the prior action was commenced for a purpose other than the adjudication of the claim, but that there was "an entire lack of probable cause in the prior proceeding" ( Engel v CBS, Inc. , 93 NY2d 195, 204 ; see Facebook, Inc. v DLA Piper LLP [US] , 134 AD3d 610, 614 ). | 3 | 2015–2025 |
Hymowitz v. Hoang Q. Nguyen
green
2 sentences2023However, res judicata only applies where there has been a final adjudication of a claim on the merits ( see Hymowitz v Nguyen , 209 AD3d 997, 998 ; Djoganopoulos v Polkes , 67 AD3d 726, 727 ). 2023The defendants appeal. "'Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final adjudication of a claim on the merits precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of [*2]transactions by a party or those in privity with a party'" ( Hymowitz v Nguyen , 209 AD3d 997, 998 , quoting 1155 Nobo Assoc., LLC v New York Hosp. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Matter of Wheeler v. Trifera, LLC
green
1 sentence2025"Under the doctrine of res judicata , a final adjudication of a claim on the merits precludes re-litigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions by a party or those in privity with a party." Wheeler v. Trifera , 209 AD3d 862 (2d Dept. 2022). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Jones v. Flushing Bank
green
1 sentence2024"A judgment of foreclosure and sale entered against a defendant is final as to all questions at issue between the parties, and concludes [*2]all matters of defense which were or might have been raised in the foreclosure action" ( Jones v Flushing Bank , 212 AD3d 791, 793 ; see Dupps v Betancourt , 121 AD3d 746, 747 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Martinez v. JRL Food Corp.
green
1 sentence2024Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final adjudication of a claim precludes relitigating that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions by a party (Martinez v JRL Food Corp., 194 AD3d 488 [1st Dept 2021 ]). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Nyack Hospital v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.
green
1 sentence2024Nyack Hosp. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 8 N.Y.3d 294 (2007).” “In this instance, Applicant's counsel argues Applicant timely submitted their bill to Respondent when there was sufficient money available under the policy to pay this disputed claim. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Maurischat v. County of Nassau
green
1 sentence2023Here, the record establishes that, although Catherine commenced an action to quiet title in 1976, that action did not result in a final determination on the merits ( see Maurischat v County of Nassau , 81 AD3d 793, 794 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Bayer v. City of New York green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Nappi v. Inc. Village of Lynbrook green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| 83-17 Broadway Corp. v. Debcon Financial Services, Inc. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Hope for Youth, Inc. v. State of New York green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| TD Bank v. Talia Properties, Inc. neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Oliver green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| People v. Bouyea green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| People v. Proctor green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Fasani v. Rappaport neutral | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Kenyon v. Quinones neutral | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| International Summit Equities Corp. v. Van Schoor neutral | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Hicks neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Mannery neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Arrieta green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Suffolk Housing Services v. Town of Brookhaven neutral | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Douglaston Civic Ass'n v. Galvin green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| New York State Labor Relations Board v. Holland Laundry, Inc. green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| Spadaro v. Palmisano green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| Oregon v. Hitchcock green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Naganab v. Hitchcock green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Louisiana v. Garfield green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| United States Ex Rel. Goldberg v. Daniels green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| State of New Mexico v. Lane green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Morrison v. Work green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Cummings v. Deutsche Bank Und Discontogesellschaft green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Ex Parte Republic of Peru green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Lamont v. Travelers Insurance Company neutral | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Hewitt v. Speyer green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Gledhill v. . Schiff neutral | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Ezra v. Lamont neutral | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Matter of United States of Mexico v. Schmuck green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| In re Goldstein neutral | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.