Barrett v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barrett v. City of New York

166 A.D.2d 241, 564 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11719

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 166 A.D.2d 241 (Barrett v. City of New York) 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

Barrett v. City of New York, 166 A.D.2d 241, 564 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11719 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about March 6, 1990, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice on the grounds that the claims were barred by res judicata, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a former New York City probationary police officer, brought this plenary action to recover money damages for his allegedly wrongful and discriminatory dismissal. During his probationary period, plaintiff was arrested for driving while intoxicated and subsequently pleaded guilty. Plaintiff was suspended and later dismissed. In April 1988, he brought a CPLR article 78 proceeding in which Justice Baer found that his dismissal was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Maintenance of this action is barred under the doctrine of res judicata (O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353). "[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, supra, at 357). Plaintiff had an opportunity to fully litigate the issue of his discharge in the article 78 proceeding. His failure then to raise a claim of discrimination precludes him from doing so now. (County of Nassau v New York State Pub. Employment Relations Bd., 151 AD2d 168.) Nor does plaintiff’s present demand for monetary damages, a remedy not previously sought, afford him a second opportunity to obtain substantially the same relief denied him in the prior proceeding. (See, Yerg v Board of Educ., 141 AD2d 537.) Concur—Ross, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

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

Order of Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about March 6, 1990, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice on the grounds that the claims were barred by res judicata, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a former New York City probationary police officer, brought this plenary action to recover money damages for his allegedly wrongful and discriminatory dismissal. During his probationary period, plaintiff was arrested for driving while intoxicated and subsequently pleaded guilty. Plaintiff was suspended and later dismissed. In April 1988, he brought a CPLR article 78 proceeding in which Justice Baer found that his dismissal was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Maintenance of this action is barred under the doctrine of res judicata (O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353). "[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, supra, at 357). Plaintiff had an opportunity to fully litigate the issue of his discharge in the article 78 proceeding. His failure then to raise a claim of discrimination precludes him from doing so now. (County of Nassau v New York State Pub. Employment Relations Bd., 151 AD2d 168.) Nor does plaintiff’s present demand for monetary damages, a remedy not previously sought, afford him a second opportunity to obtain substantially the same relief denied him in the prior proceeding. (See, Yerg v Board of Educ., 141 AD2d 537.) Concur—Ross, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 241, 564 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrett-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack