James M. v. City of New York Police Department

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

James M. v. City of New York Police Department

69 A.D.3d 634, 892 N.Y.2d 501

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 634 (James M. v. City of New York Police Department) 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

James M. v. City of New York Police Department, 69 A.D.3d 634, 892 N.Y.2d 501 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

[635]*635The doctrine of res judicata operates to preclude the reconsideration of claims actually litigated and resolved in a prior proceeding, as well as claims for different relief against the same party which arise out of the same factual grouping or transaction, and which should have or could have been resolved in the prior proceeding (see Mahler v Campagna, 60 AD3d 1009, 1011 [2009]; Matter of Kafka v Meadowlark Gardens Owners, Inc., 34 AD3d 676, 677 [2006]; Luscher v Arrua, 21 AD3d 1005, 1006-1007 [2005]). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the doctrine of res judicata precluded it from entertaining the appellant’s claims. Those claims had been litigated in a prior CPLR article 78 proceeding commenced by the court-appointed guardian of the appellant’s property, which was resolved by a so-ordered stipulation in which the guardian agreed to discontinue the proceeding with prejudice (see Matter of State of New York v Seaport Manor A.C.F., 19 AD3d 609, 610 [2005]; Dolitsky’s Dry Cleaners v YL Jericho Dry Cleaners, 203 AD2d 322, 322-323 [1994]). We also note that the appellant raised certain contentions on a prior appeal in this proceeding that were rejected (see Matter of James M., 275 AD2d 324 [2000]), and that the contentions he raises on the instant appeal are substantially similar to those prior contentions (see Frankson v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 67 AD3d 213, 217-218 [2009]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.E, Covello, Santucci and Balkin, JJ, concur.

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

[635]*635The doctrine of res judicata operates to preclude the reconsideration of claims actually litigated and resolved in a prior proceeding, as well as claims for different relief against the same party which arise out of the same factual grouping or transaction, and which should have or could have been resolved in the prior proceeding (see Mahler v Campagna, 60 AD3d 1009, 1011 [2009]; Matter of Kafka v Meadowlark Gardens Owners, Inc., 34 AD3d 676, 677 [2006]; Luscher v Arrua, 21 AD3d 1005, 1006-1007 [2005]). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the doctrine of res judicata precluded it from entertaining the appellant’s claims. Those claims had been litigated in a prior CPLR article 78 proceeding commenced by the court-appointed guardian of the appellant’s property, which was resolved by a so-ordered stipulation in which the guardian agreed to discontinue the proceeding with prejudice (see Matter of State of New York v Seaport Manor A.C.F., 19 AD3d 609, 610 [2005]; Dolitsky’s Dry Cleaners v YL Jericho Dry Cleaners, 203 AD2d 322, 322-323 [1994]). We also note that the appellant raised certain contentions on a prior appeal in this proceeding that were rejected (see Matter of James M., 275 AD2d 324 [2000]), and that the contentions he raises on the instant appeal are substantially similar to those prior contentions (see Frankson v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 67 AD3d 213, 217-218 [2009]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.E, Covello, Santucci and Balkin, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 634, 892 N.Y.2d 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-m-v-city-of-new-york-police-department-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack