The amended complaint is dismissed as barred by collateral estoppel. The allegations in plaintiff's third amended complaint in the federal action were substantially identical to her amended complaint herein. The federal action was dismissed because plaintiff failed to establish standing. She did not own the shares that were allegedly stolen; her husband did, although she claimed that she inherited those shares. The issue of plaintiff's injury was 'necessarily decided in the prior federal action between the parties, and plaintiff was granted a 'full and fair opportunity to contest' that finding.
While plaintiff brought the federal action in her capacity as representative of her husbands estate, she also brought individual claims, as she does here, and the dismissal of those individual claims bars plaintiff from relitigating those claims.
Plaintiff unpersuasively relies on the fact that the federal action was dismissed without prejudice. It is true that where a case is dismissed for lack of Article III standing, the dismissal must be without prejudice. However, that does not mean that a plaintiff may simply litigate elsewhere.
Tzanakakis v. Royce, NY Slip Op 03349 (1st Dep't June 18, 2024)
