Anderson v. New York City Department of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anderson v. New York City Department of Education

93 A.D.3d 538, 939 N.Y.S.2d 857

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 20, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 93 A.D.3d 538 (Anderson v. New York City Department of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. New York City Department of Education, 93 A.D.3d 538, 939 N.Y.S.2d 857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered April 29, 2010, which, in an action arising out of the termination of plaintiff’s employment as a probationary teacher, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiffs action arose out of the same set of circumstances as his prior CPLR article 78 proceeding, which was dismissed. “[0]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 [539]*539NY2d 353, 357 [1981]; see Daved Fire Sys. Inc. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 46 AD3d 364 [2007]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments, including that he did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims, and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Renwick, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered April 29, 2010, which, in an action arising out of the termination of plaintiff’s employment as a probationary teacher, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiffs action arose out of the same set of circumstances as his prior CPLR article 78 proceeding, which was dismissed. “[0]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 [539]*539NY2d 353, 357 [1981]; see Daved Fire Sys. Inc. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 46 AD3d 364 [2007]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments, including that he did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims, and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Renwick, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 A.D.3d 538, 939 N.Y.S.2d 857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-new-york-city-department-of-education-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack