Merced v. Ponte

2 Citing cases

  1. Constantino-Gleason v. N.Y. Unified Court Sys.

    21-CV-6327 (JLS) (W.D.N.Y. Jun. 16, 2023)

    Res judicata "is not limited to only claims that were actually litigated." Merced v. Ponte, No. 17-CV-4918 (KAM), 2019 WL 1208791, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019), aff'd, 807 Fed.Appx. 127 (2d Cir. 2020). Rather, "it bars all legal claims that a party could have raised in the prior litigation."

  2. Miller v. City of New York

    17 CV 4198 (RJD) (E.D.N.Y. May. 10, 2019)   Cited 7 times
    Holding the plaintiff's Section 1983 claims were barred by res judicata as his “constitutional claims seeking declaratory relief” arose out of the “same transaction or series of transactions as those at issue in his Article 78 proceeding” and therefore could have been raised in his Article 78 proceeding

    It is well-settled that Article 78 proceedings constitute "an adjudication on the merits" for purposes of a res judicata analysis. Merced v. Ponte, 2019 WL 1208791, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019) (citing Bray v. New York Life Ins., 851 F.2d 60, 63-64 (2d Cir. 1988)). Moreover, Miller's constitutional claims seeking declaratory relief arise out of the "same transaction or series of transactions" as those at issue in his Article 78 proceeding and thus could have been raised in his Article 78 proceeding.