Mejia v.

9 Citing cases

  1. Newby v. GVC II, Inc.

    17 Civ. 9742 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    Plaintiff unfortunately may not have known "that by filing an Article 78 petition to review [the New York State Division of Human Rights]'s determination, not for its correctness, but merely for arbitrariness, [he] would foreclose all resort to the courts." Mejia v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., No. 13 Civ. 2434, 2014 WL 2115109, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2014), aff'd, 622 F. App'x 70 (2d Cir. 2015). A "New York state court affirmation of [an agency's] finding of no probable cause [] precludes federal litigation based on the same facts."

  2. Siji Yu v. Knighted, LLC

    19-1717-cv (2d Cir. Jun. 30, 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Accordingly, we affirm the District Court's February 16, 2017 judgment. See also Mejia v. N.YC. Health & Hosps. Corp., 622 F. App'x 70 (2d Cir. 2015); Yan Yam Koo v. Dep't of Bldgs. of City of N.Y., 218 F. App'x 97 (2d Cir. 2007).

  3. Quarles v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps.

    22 Civ. 04553 (PGG) (GWG) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 8, 2023)

    Indeed, courts have routinely taken judicial notice of NYSDHR proceedings at the motion to dismiss stage. See, e.g., Mejia v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2014 WL 2115109, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2014), aff'd, 622 Fed.Appx. 70 (2d Cir. 2015); Zoulas, 400 F.Supp.3d at 48 (“Furthermore, the Court is permitted to take judicial notice of Zoulas' filings with the SDHR.”); Isbell v. City of New York, 316 F.Supp.3d 571, 587 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (“To the extent that a particular filing with the NYSDHR is not referenced or otherwise incorporated into the Amended Complaint, I may take judicial notice of it for purposes of deciding Defendants' motion.”)

  4. Telesford v. Esgrow

    15-CV-6191 CJS (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2018)

    Under New York law, the doctrine of issue preclusion only applies if (1) the issue in question was actually and necessarily decided in a prior proceeding, and (2) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first proceeding.Mejia v. N.Y. City Health & Hosps. Corp., 622 F. App'x 70, 71 (2d Cir. 2015) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The litigant seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel must demonstrate that the decisive issue was necessarily decided in the prior action against a party, or one in privity with a party.

  5. Featherstone v. Cornell Univ.

    3:17-CV-565 (MAD/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    The combination of the SDHR proceeding and Article 78 review provided Plaintiff a full and fair opportunity to present her claims. See Mejia v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosp. Corp., 622 Fed. Appx. 70, 71 (2d Cir. 2015) (ruling that a plaintiff who filed her SDHR complaint and Article 78 petition pro se had a full and fair opportunity to litigate her claims even though SDHR did not hold a hearing or a conference).

  6. Cayuga Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Seneca Cnty.

    260 F. Supp. 3d 290 (W.D.N.Y. 2017)   Cited 10 times
    Dismissing similar counterclaim alleging that the 1838 Treaty of Buffalo Creek disestablished, or terminated, the Cayugas' reservation

    Under New York law, the doctrine of issue preclusion only applies if (1) the issue in question was actually and necessarily decided in a prior proceeding, and (2) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first proceeding. Mejia v. N.Y. City Health & Hosps. Corp. , 622 Fed.Appx. 70, 71 (2d Cir. 2015) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The litigant seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel must demonstrate that the decisive issue was necessarily decided in the prior action against a party, or one in privity with a party.

  7. Siji Yu v. Knighted LLC

    No. 15-CV-9340 (KMK) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2017)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that the plaintiff was collaterally estopped from bringing discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and ADEA in federal court, where he previously brought employment discrimination claims in state court under state law because "the elements of a successful employment discrimination claim are identical under both federal and state law"

    Therefore, the defense "may be brought, under appropriate circumstances, . . . via a motion to dismiss." Thomas v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 938 F. Supp. 2d 314, 331 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g., Mejia v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., 622 F. App'x 70 (2d Cir. 2015) (affirming dismissal of complaint on collateral estoppel grounds based upon NYSDHR and NYS Supreme Court decisions). "[I]n discrimination actions, courts regularly take notice of NY[S]DHR filings and determinations relating to a plaintiff's claims."

  8. Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank (In re Williams)

    Case No. 1-18-44707-ess (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Jun. 18, 2020)

    That is, "'[a] federal court must give to a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given that judgment under the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered.'" Mejia v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., 2014 WL 2115109, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2014) (quoting Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984)), aff'd, 622 F. App'x 70 (2d Cir. 2015). Several requirements must be met in order for a prior New York state court judgment to have preclusive effect.

  9. Green v. Wells Fargo Bank (In re Green)

    Case No. 1-18-41652-ess (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Jun. 18, 2020)

    That is, "'[a] federal court must give to a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given that judgment under the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered.'" Mejia v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., 2014 WL 2115109, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2014) (quoting Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984)), aff'd, 622 F. App'x 70 (2d Cir. 2015). Several requirements must be met in order for a prior New York state court judgment to have preclusive effect.