Stanley v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stanley v. City of New York

136 A.D.3d 474, 24 N.Y.S.3d 507

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 2016

Docket172 307059/13

StatusPublished

This text of 136 A.D.3d 474 (Stanley 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

Stanley v. City of New York, 136 A.D.3d 474, 24 N.Y.S.3d 507 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered October 15, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The doctrine of res judicata bars this action alleging violations of 42 USC §§ 1983 and 1985 stemming from plaintiffs’ arrest in 2011. Plaintiffs could have raised their current claims in their prior action, which involved the same incident and parties (see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]). Although one of plaintiffs’ claims was not dismissed on the merits in the prior action, they did not pursue that claim in this action.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Andrias, Saxe and Feinman, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered October 15, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The doctrine of res judicata bars this action alleging violations of 42 USC §§ 1983 and 1985 stemming from plaintiffs’ arrest in 2011. Plaintiffs could have raised their current claims in their prior action, which involved the same incident and parties (see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]). Although one of plaintiffs’ claims was not dismissed on the merits in the prior action, they did not pursue that claim in this action.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Andrias, Saxe and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.3d 474, 24 N.Y.S.3d 507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanley-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack