first action bar (New York) · Go Syfert
← New York issues

first action bar in New York

6 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1904–2012 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Lambert v. Sklargreen
nyappdiv · 2006 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012This is true even where the plaintiff who commences a lawsuit under section 205 (a) is a completely different entity than that who commenced the initial lawsuit which was dismissed for lack of legal capacity, as long as the real party in interest is unchanged (see Lambert v Sklar, 30 AD3d 564, 566 [2006]; Freedman v New York Hosp.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Carrick v. Central General Hospital green
ny · 1980
2 sentences

2012Thus, an “error” relating to the identity of the named plaintiff in the first action does not bar recommencement of the action pursuant to CPLR 205 (a) (Carrick, 51 NY2d at 252 ).

2006Hosp., 51 NY2d 242 [1980]; George v Mt.

32005–2012
De Coss v. Turner & Blanchard, Inc. green
ny · 1935
1 sentence

1955(De Coss v. Turner & Blanchard, 267 N. Y. 207, 211 .) The final judgment in the prior injunction suit now bars the subsequent suit based on the first cause of action in the complaint herein.

11955–1955
Gall v. Gall neutral
nyappdiv · 1897
1 sentence

1923(See, also, Gall v. Gall, 17 App. Div. 312 .) We think that the Special Term erroneously decided that the judgment in the first action was a bar to this action, and that the judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, with costs, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs, with leave to defendants to answer on payment of said costs.

11923–1923
Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Wisner green
nyappdiv · 1899
1 sentence

1904(Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Wisner, 38 App. Div. 369 .) It is true that in the defendant’s action the plaintiffs might have set up by way of counterclaim the matter upon which they now seek to obtain a judgment, and the court would have jurisdiction in that action to dispose of all of the issues and compel a full and complete accounting upon the part of the defendant; but they were not bound to resort to such remedy.

11904–1904

Where else courts name it

NC 10 (1930–2008) CA 7 (1900–1980) NY 6 (1904–2012) OR 5 (1919–2023) MO 3 (1884–2001) IL 3 (1983–2011) WI 3 (1901–1991) MI 3 (1928–1998) IN 3 (1928–2015) CO 2 (1919–1999) LA 2 (2015–2015) MT 2 (1928–1999)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check