Case ID: ad3d_82/html/0446-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward A. Kaminsky, Appellant, v Herrick, Feinstein, LLP, Respondent.
    [917 NYS2d 866]
   The complaint was properly dismissed as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiff s action arose out of the same set of circumstances as his prior 2006 action, which was dismissed (see 59 AD3d 1 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 715 [2009]), and “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 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments, including that he did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims, and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.