Kaminsky v. Herrick, Feinstein, LLP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaminsky v. Herrick, Feinstein, LLP

82 A.D.3d 446, 917 N.Y.2d 866

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 446 (Kaminsky v. Herrick, Feinstein, LLP) 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

Kaminsky v. Herrick, Feinstein, LLP, 82 A.D.3d 446, 917 N.Y.2d 866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The complaint was properly dismissed as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiff s action arose out of the same set of circumstances as his prior 2006 action, which was dismissed (see 59 AD3d 1 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 715 [2009]), and “once 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 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]).

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.E, Acosta, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

The complaint was properly dismissed as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiff s action arose out of the same set of circumstances as his prior 2006 action, which was dismissed (see 59 AD3d 1 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 715 [2009]), and “once 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 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]).

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.E, Acosta, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 446, 917 N.Y.2d 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaminsky-v-herrick-feinstein-llp-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack