desirable work than his peers because of his military service this is simply not the type of alleged wrong for which you sarah provides a remedy you serve as remedies are very limited are limited to lost wages and benefits  and liquidated damages equal to the amount of lost wages and benefits the plaintiff here does not and cannot allege that he lost any wages or benefits as a result of simply being assigned more work or less desirable work than his peers and there is no this court has not previously addressed this issue but courts outside the circuit that have you know uniformly held that a plaintiff has no standing to sue under userra where there is no claim in the case redressal by an award of lost wages or selection of remedies did not deprive the state court of its subject matter jurisdiction or its power to dismiss the case for fillers as to state of cause of action now this court's decision this court's one thousand nine hundred five decision in moody vs federal reserve first of all that cases distinguishable it should not be followed in this case first of all moody was addressing the jurisdiction of the federal district court in the context of deciding whether the election of remedies defense was waive all moody did not address the jurisdiction of the new york state supreme court under the new york constitution and the new york human rights law to the extent moody could be construed as interpreted state law as applied to state court jurisdiction movie is inconsistent with firmly established principles of new york state law emphasized by the new york court of appeals in cases such as lax vs lax and thrasher those principles being that the state supreme court is a court of general jurisdiction that jurisdiction is vested by the constitution in that  student new york court of appeals cases stand for the proposition that statutory limitations on the plaintiffs right to commence an action under state law do not deprive a state court the state court of subject matter jurisdiction over that action the provision of the human rights law in question in section two ninety seven nine presumes that the state court has jurisdiction over plenary actions for employment discrimination so the statute creates the cause of action it makes an exception in the case of an election of remedy so the plaintiff where the plaintiff is elected his or her remedies by first going to the state division of human rights in the election of remedies bar applies that deprives the plaintiff of the cause of action which does not deprive the state court of jurisdiction as a matter of state law so that was moody's that that's the basis for which movie should be overruled to the extent it addresses or a state court jurisdiction movie is further called into doubt by recent decisions division second department and lucky and rodriguez which explicitly ruled that a plain a selection of remedies under the human rights law does not implicate the state's jurisdiction over the action so the state court's decision was a final decision is and that's what the restatement of judgment says and as you point out the new york court of appeals typically follows the restatement of judgments unfortunately there are all these appellate division decisions that take a contrary view right  is this court it in terry versus village of patchogue but additionally even if that decision the state court decision or not on the merits it would still be entitled to raise judicata fact as a matter of state law based on the linton case and other court of appeals cases which are cited in the brief which stand for the proposition that where the second action is based on the same defective allegations as raised in the first action and rejected by the first court in that predicate action re irmed if the no further questions all rest on the brief thank you thank you that was your decision that's the last case on calend