Summary
noting that neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel require identical parties
Summary of this case from Brown Associates, Inc. v. CRK Contracting of Suffolk, Inc.Opinion
April 12, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Burton Sherman, J.).
The IAS Court properly dismissed plaintiff's pro se complaint in the underlying action, seeking monetary damages for, inter alia, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and tortious interference with contract as against the defendants, arising from the plaintiff's unsuccessful production in 1985 of the musical "West Side Story" at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. and the subsequent seizure of the production property pursuant to a writ of attachment, as barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The record reflects the fact that this Court, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, have all dismissed prior actions and proceedings and rejected claims by the plaintiff grounded upon the same foundation which is the predicate for the present action (see, Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494).
It is well settled, under the transactional analysis approach adopted by this State in deciding res judicata issues, that "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 N.Y.2d 353, 357, citing Matter of Reilly v Reid, 45 N.Y.2d 24, 29-30).
In addition, collateral estoppel is available to protect those defendants who were not parties to the earlier proceedings from having to litigate those issues previously raised and rejected, where, as here, the plaintiff fully participated in the prior proceedings and had a full and fair opportunity to litigate all the claims which were actually litigated or which could have been litigated in those proceedings (Koch v Consolidated Edison Co., 62 N.Y.2d 548, cert denied 469 U.S. 1210).
The record also reflects that the plaintiff's causes of action in the complaint, served on or about October 15, 1991, which accrued on September 21, 1985 when she was prohibited from removing the production property from the Kennedy Center pursuant to the writ of attachment, were also barred by the applicable statutes of limitations (i.e., CPLR 213 [six years]; CPLR 214 [three years]).
The IAS Court also properly imposed a monetary sanction of $1,000 against the plaintiff for her abusive and frivolous conduct pursuant to 22 N.Y.CRR part 130, where, as here, an examination of the record establishes, and the IAS Court specifically found, that the underlying frivolous and vexatious action was undertaken primarily to harass the defendants.
We have reviewed the plaintiff's remaining claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.