Finkel v. New York City Housing Authority
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The court correctly determined that the complaint filed with respondent New York State Division of Human Rights in 2010 was barred under the doctrine of res judicata because the complaints filed by petitioner in federal court in 1990 and 1991 were based on the same transaction as the 2010 petition, and *493were dismissed on the merits (see Zito v Fischbein Badillo Wagner Harding, 80 AD3d 520, 521 [2011]; Bettis v Kelly, 68 AD3d 578, 579 [2009]). Moreover, the 2010 complaint fails to allege any additional damages that were separate and distinct from those generated by respondent New York City…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lusk v. WeinsteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Zito v. Fischbein Badillo Wagner HardingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Bettis v. KellyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
3Cited by1 opinion
- Dugan v. London Terrace Gardens, L.P.New York Supreme Court · 2013