{"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-2026-11-03","fingerprint":"ewai:us:fae3c7","proof":"sha256:cd819b9f03cf403f894282b9f476b9e081944a9a038ae41071873c776d56d8e1","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","neighbors":[{"id":"us:ca11-23-12878-2026-09-04","name":"Dr. Lesley Williams v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia","decided":"2026-09-04","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-23-12878-2026-09-04","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca11-23-12878-2026-09-04","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca11-23-12878-2026-09-04"},{"id":"us:cadc-24-7038-2026-09-04","name":"Ronda L. Davis v. DC","decided":"2026-09-04","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:cadc-24-7038-2026-09-04","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:cadc-24-7038-2026-09-04","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:cadc-24-7038-2026-09-04"},{"id":"us:ca8-25-3044-2026-09-04","name":"Michael Sack v. City of St. Louis","decided":"2026-09-04","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca8-25-3044-2026-09-04","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca8-25-3044-2026-09-04","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca8-25-3044-2026-09-04"},{"id":"us:cadc-26-5243-2026-09-04","name":"League of Women Voters v. DHS","decided":"2026-09-04","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:cadc-26-5243-2026-09-04","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:cadc-26-5243-2026-09-04","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:cadc-26-5243-2026-09-04"},{"id":"us:ca11-26-10171-2026-09-03","name":"Dominick Russo v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce","decided":"2026-09-03","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-26-10171-2026-09-03","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca11-26-10171-2026-09-03","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca11-26-10171-2026-09-03"},{"id":"us:ca11-24-10572-2026-09-01","name":"Anne Guthrie v. Coal Bed Services Inc.","decided":"2026-09-01","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-24-10572-2026-09-01","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca11-24-10572-2026-09-01","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca11-24-10572-2026-09-01"},{"id":"us:ca2-25-1197-2026-08-31","name":"Dolce v. Connetquot Cent. Sch. Dist.","decided":"2026-08-31","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca2-25-1197-2026-08-31","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca2-25-1197-2026-08-31","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca2-25-1197-2026-08-31"},{"id":"us:ca1-25-1519-2026-08-25","name":"Russo v. New Hampshire Neurospine Institute, P.A.","decided":"2026-08-25","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-25-1519-2026-08-25","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-25-1519-2026-08-25","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-25-1519-2026-08-25"},{"id":"us:ca11-25-13267-2026-08-25","name":"Jeremy Ellis v. Sheriff, Hillsborough County Florida","decided":"2026-08-25","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-25-13267-2026-08-25","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca11-25-13267-2026-08-25","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca11-25-13267-2026-08-25"},{"id":"us:ca9-25-3664-2026-08-25","name":"County of King v. Turner","decided":"2026-08-25","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-25-3664-2026-08-25","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-25-3664-2026-08-25","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-25-3664-2026-08-25"}],"verification":{"stored_sha256":"222c36e1a9ce24a0b818ce071be71994bce6983c792702e7592a259adcb13d77","recomputed_sha256":"222c36e1a9ce24a0b818ce071be71994bce6983c792702e7592a259adcb13d77","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-11-03T11:20:14.924Z"},"verification_scope":{"stored_hash_is_source_verification":false,"official_source_comparison":"not_performed","legal_review":"not_assessed"},"decision_object":{"schema_version":"1","object_id":"decision:us:ca2-25-1667-2026-08-10","judgment_class":"E","operative_part":"not_in_register","cites_count":11,"word_count":5604,"decision_url":null},"agent_links":{"agent_root":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/agent.json","agent_overview":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/rapid/agent/overview"}},"hash":"sha256:cd819b9f03cf403f894282b9f476b9e081944a9a038ae41071873c776d56d8e1","version":"legal-2026-11-03","expires":"2026-11-04T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-11-03+legal-2026-11-03+2026-11-03T08:46:54","content_hash":"sha256:cd819b9f03cf403f894282b9f476b9e081944a9a038ae41071873c776d56d8e1","revalidate_after":"2026-11-03T12:20:15.172Z","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":"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","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca2-25-1667-2026-08-10","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-86f9445181ae9729d1265e19e8d2cdeb","response_hash":"sha256:cd819b9f03cf403f894282b9f476b9e081944a9a038ae41071873c776d56d8e1"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T11:20:15.774Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca2-25-1667-2026-08-10&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":23479}}