53 Cited authorities

EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.
5 N.Y.3d 11 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 2,046 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that underwriter of initial public offering had fiduciary duty to disclose to issuer its "compensation arrangements with its customers," whereby it was to receive percentage of profits generated in post-offering resales
W.W.W. Assocs v. Giancontieri
77 N.Y.2d 157 (N.Y. 1990) Cited 2,203 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that extrinsic evidence was immaterial, in part because the contract plainly manifested intent that all prior understandings were merged into the contract, which expressed the parties' full agreement
Murphy v. American Home Prod
58 N.Y.2d 293 (N.Y. 1983) Cited 1,846 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the limitation period for commencing a judicial action for unlawful discrimination in employment is the three-year period of N YCiv.Prac.L. R. § 214
O'Brien v. City of Syracuse
54 N.Y.2d 353 (N.Y. 1981) Cited 1,291 times
Holding that allegations involving "acts occurring after" the prior lawsuit were not barred by res judicata
In the Matter of Hunter
4 N.Y.3d 260 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 522 times
Concluding that res judicata barred petitioner's claim against executor of estate where prior Surrogate's Court's decree had released executor from all further liability as to matters embraced in the decree, including petitioner's claim
Richbell Information Services, Inc. v. Jupiter Partners, L.P.
309 A.D.2d 288 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003) Cited 474 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff's action for conversion, "while satisfying the technical elements of that tort, was properly dismissed as duplicative of the insufficient contract claims"
Kass v. Kass
91 N.Y.2d 554 (N.Y. 1998) Cited 551 times
Holding that the parties’ agreement controlled
Schron v. Troutman Sanders LLP
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 952 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 251 times
Affirming a grant of New York state court motion to dismiss based on the application of the parol evidence rule
Matter of Reilly v. Reid
45 N.Y.2d 24 (N.Y. 1978) Cited 532 times
Holding that, “where the same foundation facts serve as a predicate for each proceeding, differences in legal theory and consequent remedy do not create a separate cause of action”
Amcan Holdings v. Canadian Bank of Com
70 A.D.3d 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010) Cited 203 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a breach of implied covenant claim was "duplicative of the breach-of-contract claim [because] both claims arise from the same facts . . . and seek the identical damages"

JFK Holding Company LLC, et al., Respondents,v.City of New York, et al., Defendants, The Salvation Army, Appellant.

53 Cited authorities

Holding that underwriter of initial public offering had fiduciary duty to disclose to issuer its "compensation arrangements with its customers," whereby it was to receive percentage of profits generated in post-offering resales

Holding that extrinsic evidence was immaterial, in part because the contract plainly manifested intent that all prior understandings were merged into the contract, which expressed the parties' full agreement

Holding that the limitation period for commencing a judicial action for unlawful discrimination in employment is the three-year period of N YCiv.Prac.L. R. § 214

Holding that allegations involving "acts occurring after" the prior lawsuit were not barred by res judicata

Concluding that res judicata barred petitioner's claim against executor of estate where prior Surrogate's Court's decree had released executor from all further liability as to matters embraced in the decree, including petitioner's claim

Holding that plaintiff's action for conversion, "while satisfying the technical elements of that tort, was properly dismissed as duplicative of the insufficient contract claims"

Holding that the parties’ agreement controlled

Affirming a grant of New York state court motion to dismiss based on the application of the parol evidence rule

Holding that, “where the same foundation facts serve as a predicate for each proceeding, differences in legal theory and consequent remedy do not create a separate cause of action”

Holding that a breach of implied covenant claim was "duplicative of the breach-of-contract claim [because] both claims arise from the same facts . . . and seek the identical damages"