Sweeney v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene

Annotate this Case
Sweeney v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene 2012 NY Slip Op 00012 Decided on January 3, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 3, 2012
Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, DeGrasse, Richter, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
6453 118314/09

[*1]Joseph Sweeney, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Defendant-Appellant.




Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Janet L.
Zaleon of counsel), for appellant.
Casella & Casella, LLP, Staten Island (Ralph P. Casella of
counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered September 27, 2010, which denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted to the extent of dismissing the action on res judicata grounds. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

This action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiff's fraud claim, based upon the same harm and arising out of the same facts presented in a prior article 78 proceeding, could and should have been asserted in the prior proceeding (see generally Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347-348 [1999]; Brooklyn Welding Corp. v City of New York, 198 AD2d 189 [1993], lv dismissed 83 NY2d 795 [1994]). Further, the relief sought in this action (i.e., lost civil servant benefits) could have been claimed and awarded in the article 78 proceeding as "incidental to the primary relief sought" (CPLR 7806; see Pauk v Board of Trustees of City Univ. of N.Y., 68 NY2d 702, 704-705 [1986]; Parker, 93 NY2d at 348).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 3, 2012

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.