DeRosa v. Dyster

• Decision Date: 12 June 2015
• Docket Number: 658 CA 14-02081
• Citation: 129 A.D.3d 1506,11 N.Y.S.3d 382,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04999
• Parties: In the Matter of Patricia DeROSA, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Paul DYSTER, as Mayor of City of Niagara Falls, and City of Niagara Falls, Respondents–Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

129 A.D.3d 1506

11 N.Y.S.3d 382

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04999

In the Matter of Patricia DeROSA, Petitioner–Appellant

v.Paul DYSTER, as Mayor of City of Niagara Falls, and City of Niagara Falls, Respondents–Respondents.

658 CA 14-02081

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

June 12, 2015.

Law Offices of W. James Schwan, Buffalo (W. James Schwan of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant.

Craig H. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, Niagara Falls (Christopher M. Mazur of Counsel), for Respondents–Respondents.

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, and DeJOSEPH, JJ.

OpinionMEMORANDUM:

Petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing her CPLR article 78 petition seeking to direct respondents to provide her with family health insurance coverage. This is the second proceeding petitioner has commenced pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking such health insurance coverage from respondents. Her prior petition was granted by Supreme Court, which determined that petitioner was entitled to family health insurance coverage provided by respondents at no cost to her pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between respondent City of Niagara Falls and petitioner's union. Our modification of the judgment in the prior appeal was on grounds not relevant herein (Matter of DeRosa v. Dyster, 90 A.D.3d 1470, 936 N.Y.S.2d 402 ). We conclude that the instant petition, which seeks identical relief based on the same provisions in the Memorandum of Understanding, “is precisely the type of repetitive litigation the doctrine of claim preclusion is designed to avoid” (Matter of Reilly v. Reid, 45 N.Y.2d 24, 31, 407 N.Y.S.2d 645, 379 N.E.2d 172 ), and it was properly dismissed based on the doctrine of res judicata (see O'Brien v. City of Syracuse,

54 N.Y.2d 353, 357, 445 N.Y.S.2d 687, 429 N.E.2d 1158 ; Barrett v. Setright, 193 A.D.2d 1094, 1095, 598 N.Y.S.2d 886, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 662, 610 N.Y.S.2d 150, 632 N.E.2d 460 ; Israel v. Walter Kaye Assoc., 145 A.D.2d 467, 468–469, 535 N.Y.S.2d 103, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 607, 545 N.Y.S.2d 103, 543 N.E.2d 746 ).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.