{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca2-25-1667-2026-08-10", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca2-25-1667-2026-08-10)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-12", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:2a3d67", "proof": "sha256:debffa5c24596dc5330811b1558c4a89fb94811db66c45165384e722540cd004", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:ca2-25-1667-2026-08-10", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Front matter", "paragraphs": [ "para_1", "para_2", "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152", "para_153", "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183", "para_184", "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188", "para_189", "para_190", "para_191", "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197", "para_198", "para_199", "para_200", "para_201", "para_202", "para_203", "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216", "para_217", "para_218", "para_219", "para_220", "para_221", "para_222", "para_223", "para_224", "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229", "para_230", "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234", "para_235", "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239", "para_240", "para_241", "para_242", "para_243", "para_244", "para_245", "para_246", "para_247", "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252", "para_253", "para_254", "para_255", "para_256", "para_257", "para_258", "para_259", "para_260", "para_261", "para_262", "para_263", "para_264", "para_265", "para_266", "para_267", "para_268", "para_269", "para_270", "para_271", "para_272", "para_273", "para_274", "para_275", "para_276", "para_277", "para_278", "para_279", "para_280", "para_281", "para_282", "para_283", "para_284", "para_285", "para_286", "para_287", "para_288", "para_289", "para_290", "para_291", "para_292", "para_293", "para_294", "para_295", "para_296", "para_297", "para_298", "para_299", "para_300", "para_301", "para_302", "para_303", "para_304", "para_305", "para_306", "para_307", "para_308", "para_309", "para_310", "para_311", "para_312", "para_313", "para_314", "para_315", "para_316", "para_317", "para_318", "para_319", "para_320", "para_321", "para_322", "para_323", "para_324", "para_325", "para_326", "para_327", "para_328", "para_329", "para_330", "para_331", "para_332", "para_333", "para_334", "para_335", "para_336", "para_337", "para_338", "para_339", "para_340", "para_341", "para_342", "para_343", "para_344", "para_345", "para_346", "para_347", "para_348", "para_349", "para_350", "para_351", "para_352", "para_353", "para_354", "para_355", "para_356", "para_357", "para_358", "para_359", "para_360", "para_361", "para_362", "para_363", "para_364", "para_365", "para_366", "para_367", "para_368", "para_369", "para_370", "para_371", "para_372", "para_373", "para_374", "para_375", "para_376", "para_377", "para_378", "para_379", "para_380", "para_381", "para_382", "para_383", "para_384", "para_385", "para_386", "para_387", "para_388", "para_389", "para_390", "para_391", "para_392", "para_393", "para_394", "para_395", "para_396", "para_397", "para_398", "para_399", "para_400", "para_401", "para_402", "para_403", "para_404", "para_405", "para_406", "para_407", "para_408", "para_409", "para_410", "para_411", "para_412", "para_413", "para_414", "para_415", "para_416", "para_417", "para_418", "para_419", "para_420", "para_421", "para_422", "para_423", "para_424", "para_425", "para_426", "para_427", "para_428", "para_429", "para_430", "para_431", "para_432", "para_433", "para_434", "para_435", "para_436", "para_437", "para_438", "para_439", "para_440", "para_441", "para_442", "para_443", "para_444", "para_445", "para_446", "para_447", "para_448", "para_449", "para_450", "para_451", "para_452", "para_453", "para_454", "para_455", "para_456", "para_457", "para_458", "para_459", "para_460", "para_461", "para_462", "para_463", "para_464", "para_465", "para_466", "para_467", "para_468", "para_469", "para_470", "para_471", "para_472", "para_473", "para_474", "para_475", "para_476", "para_477", "para_478", "para_479", "para_480", "para_481", "para_482", "para_483", "para_484", "para_485", "para_486", "para_487", "para_488", "para_489", "para_490", "para_491", "para_492", "para_493", "para_494", "para_495", "para_496", "para_497", "para_498", "para_499", "para_500" ], "kind": "front_matter" } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "25-1667", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "Rosenthal v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "In the", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "United States Court of Appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "for the Second Circuit", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "August Term 2025", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "Argued: January 30, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "Decided: August 10, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "No. 25-1667", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "SUSAN G. ROSENTHAL", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "Plaintiff-Appellant,", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "ROOSEVELT ISLAND OPERATING CORPORATION, JOSEPH RABITO, KUMIKI GIBSON,", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "SIMONIDA SUBOTIC,", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "Defendants-Appellees.", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "Appeal from the United States District Court", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "for the Southern District of New York", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "No. 23-cv-9660", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "____", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "Before: SACK and PÉREZ, Circuit Judges, and PRESKA, District Judge.*", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "STEVEN G. STORCH, Storch Byrne LLP, New York, NY, for", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "Plaintiff-Appellant.", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "HOLLY G. ROGERS, Melick & Porter, LLP, New York, NY", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "for Defendant-Appellee Roosevelt Island Operating", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "Corporation.", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "* Judge Loretta A. Preska, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "sitting by designation.", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "2", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "STEPHEN J. YANNI (Barbara D. Underwood, Ester", "paragraph_id": "para_29", "court_paragraph": 2 }, { "text": "Murdukhayeva, on the brief), on behalf of Letitia James,", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "Attorney General of the State of New York, New York,", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "NY, for Defendants-Appellees Joseph Rabito, Kumiki Gibson,", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "and Simonida Subotic.", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "PRESKA, District Judge:", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "Appellant Susan Rosenthal served as the President and CEO of the", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (“RIOC”), a public benefit corporation", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "that governs New York’s Roosevelt Island. On June 19, 2020, the New York", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "Governor’s Office terminated Rosenthal with immediate effect. That same day, a", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "senior adviser to then-Governor Andrew Cuomo informed a New York Post", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "reporter that Rosenthal had been terminated following a complaint and", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "investigation into offensive comments purportedly made by Rosenthal. Quoting", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "the adviser as its primary source, a Post article soon followed: “Roosevelt Island", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "Operating Corp. head fired over ‘racially and sexually offensive’ remarks.”", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "Rosenthal denies the claims attributed to the adviser by the Post. According", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "to Rosenthal, the termination was instead a political reprisal for Rosenthal’s", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "complaints regarding New York authorities’ alleged refusal to address weather-", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "related threats to Roosevelt Island. Rosenthal further alleges that the Governor’s", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "3", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "Office—via Defendants-Appellees Rabito, Gibson, and Subotic who worked in", "paragraph_id": "para_49", "court_paragraph": 3 }, { "text": "Governor Cuomo’s administration at the time—sought to discredit her by feeding", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "false allegations to the Post. After two unsuccessful state court proceedings,", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "Rosenthal now brings a federal “stigma-plus” constitutional claim for money", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that her termination and alleged public", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "smearing by state officials deprived her of a liberty interest without due process", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "of law.", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "The question before us is not whether Rosenthal states a meritorious § 1983", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "claim, but whether the district court below correctly concluded that, under New", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "York law, the doctrine of res judicata precludes Rosenthal from asserting any § 1983", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "claim arising from her termination. We conclude that Rosenthal’s state court", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "dismissals do not preclude her instant § 1983 claim. Instead, the state court", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "dismissals adjudicated Rosenthal’s discrimination claims on the merits while", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "expressly preserving Rosenthal’s right to refile her § 1983 claim in another forum.", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "Under New York law, the doctrine of res judicata does not bar a claim that was", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "previously dismissed without prejudice and with express leave to refile—even", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "where other claims arising from the same transaction were dismissed on the", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "4", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "merits. Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s judgment and REMAND", "paragraph_id": "para_67", "court_paragraph": 4 }, { "text": "the case for further proceedings.", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "BACKGROUND", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "RIOC is a public benefit corporation that governs New York’s Roosevelt", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "Island. From approximately June 2015 to June 2020, Rosenthal served as President", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "and CEO of RIOC, in which capacity Rosenthal was an at-will state employee. At", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "all relevant times, Defendant Joseph Rabito served as Executive Secretary to the", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "Governor of New York, Defendant Kumiki Gibson served as Counsel to the", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "Governor, and Defendant Simonida Subotic served as New York State Deputy", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "Secretary for Economic Development.", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "In the course of her work for RIOC, Rosenthal claims that she discovered", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "risks to Roosevelt Island posed by its network of steam tunnels, which act as", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "Roosevelt Island’s protective sea wall. App’x at 12. Rosenthal commissioned an", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "engineering team to study the tunnels, which concluded that there could be", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "catastrophic results for Roosevelt Island in the face of a major weather event.", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "App’x at 12. Rosenthal then composed a memorandum outlining what she saw as", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "the unacceptable risks to public safety posed by the state’s inaction. App’x at 12.", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "5", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "As alleged by Rosenthal, these safety complaints raised the ire of the Governor’s", "paragraph_id": "para_85", "court_paragraph": 5 }, { "text": "Office and placed a target on her back for retaliation. App’x at 12-13.", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "On June 19, 2020, Rosenthal was informed by Defendants Rabito, Gibson,", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "and Subotic (the “Individual Defendants”) that her employment with RIOC had", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "been terminated. That same day, the New York Post published an article with the", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "headline: “Roosevelt Island Operating Corp. head fired over ‘racially and sexually", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "offensive’ remarks.” App’x at 123. The article explained:", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "“A complaint was made to the Governor’s office on June 12th by an", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "employee of the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation that alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "that the President of the organization had used inappropriate", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "language and engaged in inappropriate conduct in the workplace,”", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "Cuomo senior adviser Richard Azzopardi said in a statement.", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "“This complaint was immediately referred to the New York State", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "Governor’s Office of Employee Relations for investigation.[”] “This", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "investigation substantiated that the president had used racially and", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "sexually offensive language, in clear violation of state policy and the", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "strict standards set by this Administration.”", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "“The President [Rosenthal] was immediately terminated.”1", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "App’x at 124-25. The investigation reported by the Post was conducted by", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "Georgianna Martin of the Anti-Discrimination Investigations Division (“ADID”)", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "of the New York Governor’s Office of Employee Relations. App’x at 66. In a later", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "1 Rosenthal alleges that Azzopardi received this information from the Individual Defendants and", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "transmitted it to the press at their instruction or approval. App’x at 13.", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "6", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "sworn affidavit submitted by Martin, Martin stated that the June 12 complaint", "paragraph_id": "para_109", "court_paragraph": 6 }, { "text": "provided five examples of alleged discriminatory behavior by Rosenthal,", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "including that (i) Rosenthal purchased a painting for her office depicting a slave", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "picking cotton; (ii) Rosenthal referred to her son-in-law as “black as hell,” and her", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "daughter as “white as snow”; (iii) Rosenthal said her grandchild was “the real", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "African American”; (iv) Rosenthal stated that “not all black people look alike”; and", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "(v) on another occasion, Rosenthal stated that the “last time she trusted someone", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "she lost her virginity.” App’x at 67.", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "Martin then interviewed both the source of the complaint and additional", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "RIOC employees. In the course of those interviews, Martin reportedly discovered", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "additional allegations that Rosenthal had made numerous sexually and racially", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "offensive comments, including by listening to audio recordings of Rosenthal that", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "were played for Martin. Among other things, Rosenthal allegedly told an", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "employee whom she perceived to be Middle Eastern that he looked like a", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "“terrorist,” made repeated references to employees’ genitalia, and on at least one", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "occasion, used the n-word slur in reference to a Black employee. App’x at 68-70.", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "Martin also interviewed Rosenthal over the results of Martin’s investigation, and", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "Rosenthal “continued to deny the most serious allegations.” App’x at 70.", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "7", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "Rosenthal generally disputes this characterization of events. Instead,", "paragraph_id": "para_128", "court_paragraph": 7 }, { "text": "Rosenthal claims that she was pretextually terminated and smeared in the press in", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "retaliation for her safety complaints. To that end, Rosenthal’s complaint contends", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "that, contrary to the statements reported in the Post, the investigation", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "commissioned by the Governor’s Office “actually determined that the allegations", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "contained in the June 12 Complaint were either not supported by credible evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "or were not sufficiently offensive to warrant discipline.” App’x at 14. Rosenthal", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "further alleges that Defendants later “admitt[ed] . . . that the investigation had", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "determined that the June 12 Complaint was in fact baseless” in New York state", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "proceedings, and that Defendants were relying on other evidence which was never", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "produced to her. App’x at 16-17.", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "PROCEDURAL HISTORY", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "A. The Article 78 Proceeding", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "On October 20, 2020, Rosenthal commenced a CPLR Article 78 special", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "proceeding in New York Supreme Court challenging her termination.2 Her", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "2 An Article 78 special proceeding is designed to enable expedited challenges to purportedly unlawful state", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "administrative action, including “whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed.” NY CPLR § 7803(3). “Reflecting", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "the proceeding’s roots in the earlier petitions for writs of mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari to review,", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "the questions that may be raised in such a proceeding are limited.” See Whitfield v. City of New York, 96 F.4th", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "504, 511, 518-22 (2d Cir. 2024) (citations omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "8", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "verified petition named RIOC, the State of New York, the Individual Defendants,", "paragraph_id": "para_151", "court_paragraph": 8 }, { "text": "and eight RIOC board members as respondents. App’x at 72-90. The Article 78", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "petition alleged that Rosenthal’s termination was “arbitrary and capricious” and", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "“made ‘for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of statutory or", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "decisional law,’” App’x at 88 (quoting Matter of York v. McGuire, 63 N.Y.2d 760,", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "761 (1984)), in part because the respondents “turned a blind eye to what were", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "obvious false and baseless allegations” and “refused and failed to afford Rosenthal", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "an opportunity to review all the allegations and supposed evidence against her,”", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "App’x at 86-87. Accordingly, Rosenthal sought reinstatement, back pay, and", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "attorneys’ fees.", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "Defendants moved to dismiss Rosenthal’s petition. In support of their", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "motion, Defendants submitted a sworn affidavit from Martin, the ADID", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "investigator. Martin’s affidavit stated that she had been directed by an ADID", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "superior to investigate the June 12 complaint and “concluded that the allegations", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "made in the June 12 E-mail had not been substantiated as violations of the policies", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "set forth in the EEO Handbook.” App’x at 71. However, Martin also stated that", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "she had obtained other evidence in the course of investigating the June 12", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "complaint, including “audio recordings that had been made by a RIOC employee,", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "9", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "which were contemporaneously played for me,” App’x at 69, that documented", "paragraph_id": "para_170", "court_paragraph": 9 }, { "text": "other violations of workplace policy by Rosenthal. Rosenthal moved to open", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "discovery to obtain the alleged recordings, which the presiding justice ordered", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "shortly thereafter. Supp. App’x at 45-46. According to Rosenthal, Defendants did", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "not produce the recordings, prompting Rosenthal to prepare a motion to compel", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "and for contempt proceedings.", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "Before Rosenthal filed her contempt motion, however, the presiding justice", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "dismissed Rosenthal’s Article 78 petition in its entirety. Rosenthal v. Roosevelt Island", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "Operating Corp., 2021 WL 2891517 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 6, 2021). The court", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "emphasized that the judgment was “limited to the issue of whether the", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "administrative action has a rational basis for its determination.” Id. at *1.", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "Applying that limited scope of review, the presiding justice concluded that the", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "state officials’ “determination to terminate petitioner clearly was not irrational”", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "given the comments that were cited as justification for Rosenthal’s termination. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "at *2. Critically, however, the presiding justice caveated that:", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "[T]he people to whom petitioner allegedly said these insensitive,", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "actionable remarks could be lying; but the appropriate forum to", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "determine that would be a trial in a plenary action", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": ". . . . Indeed, petitioner apparently has already commenced such an", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "action, claiming that respondents violated her federal civil rights. The", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "instant dispute belongs there, not here.", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "10", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "Id. Rosenthal moved for reargument, asserting that Defendants had defied the", "paragraph_id": "para_192", "court_paragraph": 10 }, { "text": "court’s discovery order and never produced the audio recording. The court", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "adhered to its dismissal and vacated the discovery order as moot, again", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "emphasizing the abbreviated nature of an Article 78 proceeding and that", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "Rosenthal’s claims should be adjudicated in a full plenary action:", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "The essential difference between a CPLR Article 78 proceeding for", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "administrative review and a plenary action is as follows: the former", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "is meant to be quick; disclosure is rare; and the court’s inquiry ends if", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "it finds a rational basis for the challenged action, which it has. The", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "latter can take years, allows for ample disclosure, and is decided by a", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "trier of fact. The instant proceeding is futile, although an action may", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "not be (and one is currently pending before another Justice).", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "App’x at 91. On appeal, the First Department affirmed, concluding that the", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "respondents had identified legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "Rosenthal’s termination that were sufficient to defeat an Article 78 proceeding.", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "Matter of Rosenthal v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corp., 177 N.Y.S.3d 549 (1st Dep’t", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "2022).", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "B. The Plenary Action", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "In April of 2021, while the Article 78 proceeding was still pending,", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "Rosenthal also commenced a plenary action in the New York Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "against the same parties named in the Article 78 proceeding (the “Plenary", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "11", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "Action”). The Plenary Action alleged six claims: (i) discriminatory termination in", "paragraph_id": "para_214", "court_paragraph": 11 }, { "text": "violation of Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act; (ii) discriminatory termination", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law; (iii) discriminatory", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "termination in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law; (iv) common-", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "law defamation; (v) federal civil rights violations, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983;", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "and (vi) whistleblower retaliation, in violation of New York Labor Law § 740.", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "App’x at 57-63.", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "On July 25, 2022, the New York Supreme Court granted the named", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "defendants’ motion to dismiss Rosenthal’s discrimination claims (Counts I, II, and", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "III) with prejudice, finding that the Article 78 dismissal was a final judgment on", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "the merits that precluded any claims grounded in unlawful discrimination.", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "Rosenthal v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corp., 2022 WL 23049783, at *1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "July 25, 2022) (the “Plenary Judgment”). Critically, however, the Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "dismissed all other causes of action—including Rosenthal’s § 1983 claim—", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "“without prejudice as they were improperly brought in Supreme Court, instead of", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "before the Court of Claims which has jurisdiction over claims against New Yo[r]k", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "State.” Id. Alternatively, the Supreme Court invited Rosenthal to refile these", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "dismissed claims in Supreme Court against defendants in their individual", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "12", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "capacities. Id. at *1 n.1. The First Department affirmed. Rosenthal v. Roosevelt Island", "paragraph_id": "para_233", "court_paragraph": 12 }, { "text": "Operating Corp., 200 N.Y.S.3d 341 (1st Dep’t 2023).", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "C. The Federal § 1983 Action", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "On November 2, 2023, Rosenthal filed this federal action in the Southern", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "District of New York, alleging a single claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "of liberty without due process. App’x at 9. The gravamen of Rosenthal’s claim is", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "that her “termination as President and CEO of RIOC, coupled with the public", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "disclosure of the false reasons for her termination and the denial of the opportunity", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "to clear her name at an appropriate hearing, deprived [her] of a liberty interest", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "without Due Process of law” and thus entitles her to money damages. App’x at", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "19. The operative complaint does not allege any form of discrimination. Nor does", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "the complaint seek a name-clearing hearing, backpay, or any other remedial", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "measures. Instead, the complaint seeks more than $1,000,000 in monetary", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "damages to compensate Rosenthal for the alleged harms inflicted.", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "Appellees moved to dismiss the complaint on multiple grounds, including", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "res judicata. On May 28, 2025, the district court granted both motions to dismiss", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "on res judicata grounds but did not reach the other grounds for dismissal raised by", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "Appellees. As part of its analysis, the district court concluded there had been “two", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "13", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "final judgments on the merits regarding Rosenthal’s claims raised in connection", "paragraph_id": "para_252", "court_paragraph": 13 }, { "text": "with her termination from RIOC, with state courts dismissing her Article 78", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "Proceeding and her plenary action on the merits,” and that “Plaintiff does not", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "dispute that the rulings in these cases were final judgments on the merits.”", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "Rosenthal v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corp., 2025 WL 1518240, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "28, 2025). Operating on that assumption, the district court reasoned that because", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "Rosenthal’s § 1983 claim “ar[ose] from the same transaction as her claims in state", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "court, it is barred.” Id. at 4. This appeal followed.", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "STANDARD OF REVIEW", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "“We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) and the", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "district court’s application of res judicata,” Whitfield v. City of New York, 96 F.4th", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "504, 518 (2d Cir. 2024), “accepting all allegations in the complaint as true and", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "drawing all inferences in favor of the plaintiff,” TechnoMarine SA v. Giftports, Inc.,", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "758 F.3d 493, 498 (2d Cir. 2014). Our review of a res judicata dismissal “is limited", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "to the plaintiff’s complaint, documents attached or incorporated therein, and", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "materials appropriate for judicial notice,” including all filings and judgments", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "made in state court. VDARE Found., Inc. v. James, 162 F.4th 77, 83 (2d Cir. 2025)", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "(quoting TechnoMarine, 758 F.3d at 498).", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "14", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "DISCUSSION", "paragraph_id": "para_271", "court_paragraph": 14 }, { "text": "The district court’s dismissal hinged exclusively on res judicata. Yet", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "Rosenthal’s state court dismissals were not preclusive judgments as to Rosenthal’s", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "§ 1983 claim. Thus res judicata alone cannot bar Rosenthal’s instant suit. Because", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "we do not reach the alternative grounds for dismissal offered by Appellees, we", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "remand the case for further proceedings.3", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "A. Res Judicata", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "Under the full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, federal courts must", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "“give to a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given that", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "judgment under the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered.”", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "Whitfield, 96 F.4th at 522 (quoting Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "U.S. 75, 81 (1984)). Because New York state courts issued both decisions at issue,", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "we apply New York law to determine the preclusive effect of those decisions.", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "VDARE, 162 F.4th at 83.", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "3 In their briefs and at oral argument, both parties conflated issues that go to the merits of Rosenthal’s § 1983", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "claim with the elements of a res judicata affirmative defense. Appellees suggested that Rosenthal’s alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "failure explicitly to request a name-clearing hearing is grounds to preclude her § 1983 claim entirely.", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "Appellants countered that a name-clearing hearing need not be requested explicitly and argue that", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "Rosenthal’s § 1983 claim may proceed based on the existing record. But whether Rosenthal explicitly or", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "impliedly requested a name-clearing hearing goes to the issue of whether Rosenthal can state a § 1983", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "procedural due process claim at the pleading stage. It has no bearing on the affirmative defense of res", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "judicata that was the sole basis for the district court’s dismissal.", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "15", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "The doctrine of res judicata, sometimes referred to as claim preclusion, is an", "paragraph_id": "para_294", "court_paragraph": 15 }, { "text": "affirmative defense that must be pleaded and proven by a defendant asserting it.", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "Whitfield, 96 F.4th at 523. Under New York law, a defendant asserting such a", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "defense bears the burden to show that “(1) the previous action involved an", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "adjudication on the merits; (2) the previous action involved the plaintiffs or those", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "in privity with them; [and] (3) the claims asserted in the subsequent action were,", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "or could have been, raised in the prior action.” TechnoMarine, 758 F.3d at 499", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "(alteration in original) (quoting Monahan v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Corr., 214 F.3d 275, 285", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "(2d Cir. 2000)). Where there is uncertainty in the record, “[d]oubts should be", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "resolved against imposing preclusion to ensure that the party to be bound can be", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "considered to have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate.” Buechel v. Bain, 97", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "N.Y.2d 295, 305 (2001). New York law “has taken a pragmatic and flexible attitude", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "toward claim preclusion,” and its application of the rule “is grounded in public", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "policy concerns, including fairness to the parties, and is ‘intended to ensure", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "finality, prevent vexatious litigation and promote judicial economy.’” Simmons v.", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "Trans Express Inc., 37 N.Y.3d 107, 111 (2021) (quoting Xiao Yang Chen v. Fischer, 6", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "N.Y.3d 94, 100 (2005)). At bottom, the doctrine “seeks to prevent litigants from", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "taking two bites at the apple; however, ‘[i]n properly seeking to deny [litigants]", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "16", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "two days in court, [we] must be careful not to deprive [them] of one.’” Id. at 112", "paragraph_id": "para_313", "court_paragraph": 16 }, { "text": "(alterations in original) (quoting Reilly v. Reid, 45 N.Y.2d 24, 28 (1978)).", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "B. The State Court Judgments", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "As we explain below, the district court erred in finding that there were two", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "“final judgments on the merits” because the “state courts dismiss[ed] [Rosenthal’s]", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "Article 78 Proceeding and her plenary action on the merits.” Rosenthal, 2025 WL", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "1518240, at *3. Specifically, the district court failed to distinguish between the", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "discrimination claims that were dismissed with prejudice and Rosenthal’s non-", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "discrimination claims that were dismissed without prejudice and with express", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "leave to refile elsewhere.", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "i. The Plenary Action’s Dismissal Without Prejudice", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "The Plenary Judgment cannot have preclusive effect here because it did not", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "dismiss Rosenthal’s § 1983 claim on the merits.", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "To be sure, we can hardly fault the district court for concluding that the", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "Plenary Action was claim preclusive. The parties’ presentation of the record was", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "far from a model of clarity, and the precise nature of the state court judgments", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "continued to confound even the litigants themselves at oral argument before this", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "Court. Strictly speaking, the district court was not incorrect in observing that the", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "17", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "Plenary Action had produced a final judgment on the merits; as noted, the Plenary", "paragraph_id": "para_332", "court_paragraph": 17 }, { "text": "Action did dismiss Rosenthal’s discrimination claims with prejudice, which would", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "plainly be precluded from relitigation. It is also true that a final judgment on the", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "merits normally precludes a plaintiff from filing other claims arising from the same", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "transaction, as this would amount to improper “splitting” of the claims from a", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "single transaction across multiple lawsuits.4 Thus, if Rosenthal had opted not to", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "bring her § 1983 claim in the Plenary Action, then Rosenthal could well have been", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "precluded from bringing a new federal § 1983 suit arising from the same", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "transaction.", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "The wrinkle here is that Rosenthal did assert her § 1983 claim in the plenary", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "proceeding. Unlike the discrimination claims, the New York Supreme Court did", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "not dismiss Rosenthal’s § 1983 claim on the merits. Rather, the court dismissed all", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "non-discrimination claims—including the § 1983 claim—without prejudice on the", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "basis that they were improperly filed in New York Supreme Court. And it is long", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "settled that a “dismissal ‘without prejudice’ lacks a necessary element of res", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "4 See VDARE, 162 F.4th at 83 (under New York law, “once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "theories or if seeking a different remedy” (quoting Simmons, 37 N.Y.3d at 111); Nestor v. Pratt & Whitney,", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "466 F.3d 65, 70 (2d Cir. 2006) (res judicata is “a rule against the splitting of actions that could be brought and", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "resolved together” (citing Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24 (1982))).", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "18", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "judicata” because “such a judgment is not a final determination on the merits.”", "paragraph_id": "para_353", "court_paragraph": 18 }, { "text": "Landau, P.C. v. LaRossa, Mitchell & Ross, 11 N.Y.3d 8, 13 (2008). Indeed, “a dismissal", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "of an action by a New York court ‘may not be considered as a dismissal on the", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "merits’ if it does not specifically state that the dismissal is on the merits.” Hanrahan", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "v. Riverhead Nursing Home, 592 F.3d 367, 369 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Nems Enters.,", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "Ltd. v. Seltaeb, Inc., 263 N.Y.S.2d 525, 526 (1st Dep’t 1965)). What, then, is a district", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "court to do where, as here, a New York state court has issued a final judgment on", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "the merits regarding some claims, while dismissing without prejudice related", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "claims that arose from the same transaction?", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "We recognize that our own precedent has not squarely addressed such a", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "scenario. In our view, however, the New York Court of Appeals has resolved", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "precisely this conundrum by adopting the relevant Restatement exception", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "permitting a plaintiff to refile specific claims—notwithstanding a final judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "on the merits as to other claims arising from the same transaction—where “[t]he", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "court in the first action has expressly reserved the plaintiff’s right to maintain the", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "second action.” Landau, 11 N.Y.3d at 14 (alteration in original) (quoting Parker v.", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 N.Y.2d 343, 349 (1999)).", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "19", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "That rule, first articulated in Parker, arose from an analogous fact pattern", "paragraph_id": "para_371", "court_paragraph": 19 }, { "text": "where a dismissed municipal employee filed an Article 78 petition seeking", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "reinstatement and asserting civil rights claims for money damages under § 1983.", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "93 N.Y.2d at 346-47. Although the Article 78 proceeding ultimately rejected the", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "request for reinstatement on the merits, the same judgment dismissed the civil", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "rights claims “without prejudice to [plaintiff’s] commencement of the appropriate", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "plenary action.” Id. (alteration in original). The plaintiff then filed a plenary action", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "for § 1983 damages, which was dismissed by the Second Department as barred by", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "res judicata. Applying the Restatement’s exceptions to claim splitting, the New", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "York Court of Appeals explained that res judicata is inapplicable where a plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "could not pursue claims in a prior action “because of the limitations on the subject", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "matter jurisdiction of the courts,” see id. at 348-49 (quoting Restatement (Second)", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "of Judgments § 26(1)(c) (1982)), and concluded that it would be inequitable to", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "preclude plaintiff’s claim pursuant to res judicata where the first judgment had", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "“expressly reserved” plaintiff’s ability to bring a second action, id. at 349 (quoting", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 26(1)(b) (1982)).5 The Court of Appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "5 See also Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 26(1)(b) (noting that the general rule against claim splitting", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "set forth in § 24 of the Restatement does not apply when “[t]he court in the first action has expressly", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "reserved the plaintiff’s right to maintain the second action”). The Restatement rule has been cited with", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "20", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "therefore held that res judicata—standing alone—did not bar the § 1983 claim in", "paragraph_id": "para_391", "court_paragraph": 20 }, { "text": "the subsequent plenary action.6", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "In other words, while a final judgment on the merits normally extinguishes", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "all other claims arising from the same transaction, a concurrent dismissal without", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "prejudice for some claims preserves a plaintiff’s ability to refile those specific", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "claims in a second action. That is precisely what the Plenary Judgment did by", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "dismissing Rosenthal’s § 1983 claim without prejudice and inviting Rosenthal to", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "refile that specific claim in a different court.7", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "approval by other jurisdictions applying state and federal preclusion law. See, e.g., Apparel Art Int'l, Inc. v.", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "Amertex Enters. Ltd., 48 F.3d 576, 586 (1st Cir. 1995) (“Under a generally accepted exception to the res", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "judicata doctrine, a litigant’s claims are not precluded if the court in an earlier action expressly reserves the", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "litigant’s right to bring those claims in a later action.”); Vines v. Univ. of La. at Monroe, 398 F.3d 700, 712 n.13", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "(5th Cir. 2005) (“A judgment that expressly leaves open the opportunity to bring a second action on", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "specified parts of the claim or cause of action that was advanced in the first action should be effective to", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "forestall preclusion.” (quoting King v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 23 F.3d 926, 928 (5th Cir. 1994))).", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "6 Of course, as Parker confirms by nevertheless affirming dismissal of the claim, the Restatement rule is an", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "exception to res judicata and does not necessarily immunize a plaintiff from the entirely separate doctrine", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion). See 93 N.Y.2d at 349-50. Indeed, the Parker court ultimately", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "concluded that while the plaintiff in question was “not precluded from bringing this claim [under res", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "judicata], he [was] collaterally estopped from relitigating the issues raised in the complaint.” Id. at 350.", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "Here, in contrast to Parker, the district court based its dismissal solely on res judicata and did not consider", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "whether issue preclusion could independently bar Rosenthal’s claim. Although Rosenthal’s instant suit is", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "not precluded by res judicata, it is possible that Rosenthal is collaterally estopped from relitigating issues", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "relevant to her substantive claims. But we leave this issue to be considered, in the first instance, by the", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "district court.", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "7 It appears that Rosenthal did then file an action in the Court of Claims, which had been decided and was", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "on appeal when this appeal was being briefed, as referenced by all parties. Rosenthal Br. at 9-10; RIOC Br.", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "at 12; Individual Defendants Br. at 11. The Court of Claims decision is not in the record, and the parties do", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "not otherwise discuss its significance, if any, on this appeal. We likewise leave this issue to be considered,", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "in the first instance, by the district court.", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "21", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "Accordingly, we conclude that the district court erred in concluding that the", "paragraph_id": "para_422", "court_paragraph": 21 }, { "text": "Plenary Judgment was a final judgment on the merits that precluded Rosenthal’s", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "§ 1983 claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "ii. The Article 78 Dismissal", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "Similarly, we conclude that the Article 78 dismissal cannot preclude", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "Rosenthal’s § 1983 claim either. The Article 78 court decided only that Rosenthal", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "had failed to meet the high burden for expedited relief of an Article 78", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "proceeding—a proceeding in which, as the presiding justice aptly observed in", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "denying reconsideration, “[discovery] is rare” and “the court’s inquiry ends if it", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "finds a rational basis for the challenged action, which it has,” in contrast to a more", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "fulsome plenary action. App’x at 91. But as to Rosenthal’s claims that the", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "proffered basis for termination was itself the product of false allegations by lying", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "witnesses and a sham investigation, the Article 78 court merely noted in its", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "dismissal that “the appropriate forum to determine that would be a trial in a", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "plenary action” and that the “instant dispute belongs there, not here.” App’x at", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "147.8", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "8 Appellees incorrectly contend that “it is enough that the Plaintiff-Appellant could have brought her § 1983", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "claim in the Article 78 proceeding for res judicata to apply.” RIOC Br. 13 n.1; see Individual Defendants Br.", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "18. Whitfield shows otherwise. There, we explained that a “pure” Article 78 proceeding is one in which", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "22", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "Even if the Article 78 proceeding were considered to have impliedly", "paragraph_id": "para_442", "court_paragraph": 22 }, { "text": "adjudicated Rosenthal’s discrimination claims, as the New York State Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": "Court later concluded and the Appellate Division since agreed,9 it is settled law", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "that a “judgment in a ‘pure’ Article 78 proceeding,” such as this one,10 “does not", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "preclude, under the doctrine of res judicata, a later section 1983 damages claim", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "based on the same set of facts.” Whitfield, 96 F.4th at 525. Accordingly, the Article", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "78 dismissal cannot preclude Rosenthal’s instant suit.", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "damages are unavailable, and that “the default rule must be that a proceeding initiated by an Article 78", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "petition will be a pure Article 78 proceeding, absent clear indications otherwise” such that “claim", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "preclusion should apply only if it is clear that the state court treated the prior proceeding as one in which", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "plenary relief was available.” Whitfield, 96 F.4th at 511, 528-29 (emphasis added). In other words, we held", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "precisely the opposite of Appellees’ assertion: it is not enough that Rosenthal could have brought her § 1983", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "claim, because even if she had, the Article 78 proceeding’s preclusive effect is dependent on whether the", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "Article 78 court did in fact exercise its discretion to adjudicate that claim on the merits by converting the", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "proceeding into a hybrid proceeding or plenary action. See id. “[C]laim preclusion will not apply ‘if the", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "initial forum did not have the power to award the full measure of relief sought in the later litigation.’” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "at 523 (quoting Davidson v. Capuano, 792 F.2d 275, 278 (2d Cir. 1986)). The Article 78 court here expressly", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "declined to adjudicate Rosenthal’s § 1983 claim, and in any event “we will not presume” that an Article 78", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "court exercised its discretion to convert the proceedings beyond a pure Article 78 proceeding absent “clear", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "indication.” Id. at 529.", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "9 Rosenthal, 200 N.Y.S.3d at 342-43 (“Thus, not only has plaintiff already had a full and fair opportunity to", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "litigate the discrimination claims in the prior article 78 proceeding, but those claims were necessarily", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "decided.” (emphasis added)).", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "10 A “prior proceeding initiated under Article 78 will be deemed a hybrid proceeding only if: (1) the state", "paragraph_id": "para_465" }, { "text": "court petitioner sought relief that is not available under Article 78; and (2) the state court treated the", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "proceeding as a hybrid one.” Whitfield, 96 F.4th at 526-27 (footnote omitted). Here, Appellees do not appear", "paragraph_id": "para_467" }, { "text": "to dispute that the Article 78 proceeding was pure in nature. There is no indication that Rosenthal even", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "sought plenary relief in her petition, let alone that the Article 78 justice adjudicated the petition as a hybrid", "paragraph_id": "para_469" }, { "text": "action. On the contrary, the Article 78 justice expressly stated that, notwithstanding Rosenthal’s failure to", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "state a claim for summary relief under Article 78, a “trial in a plenary action” remained available to", "paragraph_id": "para_471" }, { "text": "adjudicate Rosenthal’s claims. App’x. at 147.", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "23", "paragraph_id": "para_473" }, { "text": "CONCLUSION", "paragraph_id": "para_474", "court_paragraph": 23 }, { "text": "When presented with a New York state court dismissal that dismisses some,", "paragraph_id": "para_475" }, { "text": "but not all, claims on the merits, a district court must scrutinize the dismissal to", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "determine which particular claims were dismissed with leave to refile elsewhere.", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "Where, as here, a New York court has preserved the plaintiff’s ability to refile", "paragraph_id": "para_478" }, { "text": "specific claims, a district court may not bar those specific claims from being", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "reasserted in a federal action under New York’s doctrine of res judicata. And where", "paragraph_id": "para_480" }, { "text": "there is uncertainty as to whether a claim has been dismissed on the merits or not,", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "the district court must resolve that uncertainty against imposing preclusion. Here,", "paragraph_id": "para_482" }, { "text": "however, we have no such uncertainty. The record is clear that Rosenthal’s § 1983", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "claim was never adjudicated on the merits by either state proceeding in the record", "paragraph_id": "para_484" }, { "text": "and was instead dismissed with leave to refile. Accordingly, res judicata, standing", "paragraph_id": "para_485" }, { "text": "alone, cannot bar Rosenthal’s instant suit here.", "paragraph_id": "para_486" }, { "text": "Because the district court’s decision was predicated entirely on res judicata,", "paragraph_id": "para_487" }, { "text": "we do not reach Appellees’ alternative arguments regarding the merits of", "paragraph_id": "para_488" }, { "text": "Rosenthal’s § 1983 claim and other grounds for dismissal such as whether", "paragraph_id": "para_489" }, { "text": "Rosenthal is collaterally estopped from raising issues relevant to the merits of her", "paragraph_id": "para_490" }, { "text": "§ 1983 claim and the import of the Court of Claims decision, if any. Instead, we", "paragraph_id": "para_491" }, { "text": "24", "paragraph_id": "para_492" }, { "text": "remand to the district court to consider these alternative arguments for dismissal,", "paragraph_id": "para_493", "court_paragraph": 24 }, { "text": "many of which are fact-bound and ill-suited for appellate review, in the first", "paragraph_id": "para_494" }, { "text": "instance. We are equally confident that the district court, exercising its sound", "paragraph_id": "para_495" }, { "text": "discretion to permit supplemental briefing or amendment of the complaint as", "paragraph_id": "para_496" }, { "text": "appropriate, will be able to incorporate any subsequent developments in the New", "paragraph_id": "para_497" }, { "text": "York state court proceedings.", "paragraph_id": "para_498" }, { "text": "For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the district court’s judgment and", "paragraph_id": "para_499" }, { "text": "REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_500" } ], "word_count": 5604, "cites": [ "465\nU.S. 75", "96 F.4th\n504", "758 F.3d 493", "162 F.4th 77", "214 F.3d 275", "466 F.3d 65", "592 F.3d 367", "48 F.3d 576", "398 F.3d 700", "23 F.3d 926", "792 F.2d 275" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "222c36e1a9ce24a0b818ce071be71994bce6983c792702e7592a259adcb13d77", "source_url": "https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/25-1667_opn.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-01T08:34:12.246+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca2-25-1667-2026-08-10", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca2-25-1667-2026-08-10", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca2-25-1667-2026-08-10", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca2-25-1667-2026-08-10", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "222c36e1a9ce24a0b818ce071be71994bce6983c792702e7592a259adcb13d77", "recomputed_sha256": "222c36e1a9ce24a0b818ce071be71994bce6983c792702e7592a259adcb13d77", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-12T13:40:01.018Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:debffa5c24596dc5330811b1558c4a89fb94811db66c45165384e722540cd004", "version": "legal-2026-10-12", "expires": "2026-10-13T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-12+legal-2026-10-12+2026-10-12T13:05:32", "content_hash": "sha256:debffa5c24596dc5330811b1558c4a89fb94811db66c45165384e722540cd004", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-12T14:40:01.179Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca2-25-1667-2026-08-10", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca2-25-1667-2026-08-10" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca2-25-1667-2026-08-10" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca2-25-1667-2026-08-10" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }