December 21, 2020

The Doctrines of Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata bar a party relitigating the same issues involving the same defendant

Reviewing an appeal challenging Supreme Court's granting the defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's ruling, explaining:

1. When a party's complaint arises out of the same set of circumstances as his prior CPLR Article 78 proceeding, the second action is barred on the grounds of res judicata; and

2. When a party has been afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate an issue and loses in a CPLR Article 78 action, collateral estoppel will bar him from litigating the issue a second time.

The Appellate Division observed that both in the instant proceeding and in an earlier Article 78 proceeding, the plaintiff [Petitioner] attacked an administrator's [Defendant] decision to give him an unsatisfactory ["U"] rating and her refusal to allow him to rescind his resignation.

The court also opined that Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the Defendant on the merits, finding that the collective bargaining agreement relied upon by Petitioner "could not serve as the basis for a tortious interference with [his] contract claim" because, among other reasons, Petitioner had not properly alleged that "he was party to a contract with a third party."

As to Petitioner's claim for "tortious interference with [his] prospective business relations," the Appellate Division found that Petitioner was unable to show that Defendant directly interfered with any prospective third-party agreement through "wrongful means" nor could he establish that he would have been hired by a third party "but for" Defendant's actions. In the words of the court, "such vague aspirations of future employment are insufficient ...," citing Kickertz v New York Univ., 110 AD3d 268 and Murphy v City of New York, 59 AD3d 301.

The decision is posted on the Internet at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_07286.htm.

 

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material in this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor members of the staff are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is advised to seek such advice from a competent professional.