O'Brien v. City of Syracuse

• Decision Date: 23 December 1980
• Citation: 79 A.D.2d 874,434 N.Y.S.2d 547
• Parties: Howard J. O'BRIEN, Jr., as Executor of the Estate of Howard J. O'Brien, Deceased, and F. Stuart O'Brien, Respondents, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE and Syracuse Urban Renewal Agency (Community Development Agency), Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 547

434 N.Y.S.2d 547

79 A.D.2d 874

Howard J. O'BRIEN, Jr., as Executor of the Estate of Howard

J. O'Brien, Deceased, and F. Stuart O'Brien, Respondents, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE and Syracuse Urban Renewal Agency

(Community Development Agency), Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Dec. 23, 1980.

David M. Garber, Corp. Counsel, Syracuse by James Gelormini, Syracuse, for appellants.

Oot & Fallon, Syracuse by William Fallon, Syracuse, for respondents.

Before DILLON, P. J., and CARDAMONE, SIMONS, DOERR and WITMER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

In 1975, alleging a de facto taking of his real property, respondent brought an action seeking condemnation damages in the amount of one million dollars. At the close of respondent's case the trial judge granted a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. This judgment was affirmed on appeal (Matter of O'Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 A.D.2d 186, 388 N.Y.S.2d 866; mot. lv. app. den. 40 N.Y.2d 809, 392 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 360 N.E.2d 1109; mot. dismiss. app. on cons. grounds granted, 41 N.Y.2d 1008, 395 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 363 N.E.2d 1195; cert. den. 434 U.S. 807, 98 S.Ct. 37, 54 L.Ed.2d 65). On June 1, 1977 appellant took title to the subject property by issuing to itself a tax deed. Thereafter respondent reinstituted legal action against appellant by asserting a cause of action based in trespass. This appeal arises from the denial of appellant's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the cause of action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

Res judicata is a doctrine that expresses a policy that once a matter is decided it may not be relitigated. It requires an identity of parties, a common "cause of action" and a final determination in the prior action. These requirements fulfilled, the doctrine forecloses, at least in this state, "not only the matters which were actually put in issue in the prior action, but also those which might have been" (Siegel, New York Practice, § 447, pp. 591-592; McLearn v. Cowen & Co., 48 N.Y.2d 696, 422 N.Y.S.2d 60, 397 N.E.2d 750; see Winters v. Lavine, 2nd Cir., 574 F.2d 46, 55-56; and see Chisholm-Ryder Company, Inc. v. Sommer & Sommer, App.Div., --- N.Y.S.2d ---- (decided 12/23/80)). Since respondent's present claim arises out of the same series of events as his de facto condemnation claim, the present claim is barred by res judicata and the complaint must be dismissed. Allowing respondent to proceed with his trespass claim...