Res Judicata & Collateral Estoppel

Res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars a party from bringing a claim that has already been decided on the merits. New York applies a transactional test: in O'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353 (1981), the Court of Appeals held that once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based on different theories or seeking a different remedy. CPLR 3211(a)(5) lists res judicata and arbitration and award as grounds for dismissal. In no-fault practice the question is usually whether an earlier judgment or award covered the same bills.

Res judicata bars a claim; collateral estoppel bars an issue. Under the transactional rule in O'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353 (1981), a final judgment on a claim bars all other claims arising from the same transaction between the same parties. Collateral estoppel, as stated in Ryan v New York Telephone Co., 62 NY2d 494 (1984), gives conclusive effect to an issue of fact or law necessarily raised and decided in a prior proceeding, provided the issue is identical and was material to the earlier decision, and the party to be bound had a full and fair opportunity to contest it. Both are pleaded under CPLR 3211(a)(5).

An arbitration award can have preclusive effect, but the scope depends on what was decided. Insurance Law § 5106(c) makes an arbitrator's award binding except where vacated or modified by a master arbitrator, and a master arbitrator's award binding except on Article 75 review, with a right to a de novo court action when the master award is $5,000 or more. CPLR 3211(a)(5) allows dismissal of a claim barred by arbitration and award. Ryan v New York Telephone Co., 62 NY2d 494 (1984), holds that preclusion attaches to quasi-judicial determinations reached through procedures substantially similar to a court's. The award itself shows which bills and issues it resolved.