Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Maria TZANAKAKIS etc., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Joseph E. ROYCE, et al., Defendants–Respondents, Jaime Leroux, et al., Defendants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jennifer Schecter, J.), entered August 19, 2022, which granted defendants TBS Shipping Services, Inc. (TBS), Guardian Navigation Services, Inc., Joseph E. Royce, and Lawrence A. Blatte's motions to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Supreme Court properly dismissed the amended complaint as barred by collateral estoppel. The allegations in plaintiff's third amended complaint in the federal action were substantially identical to her amended complaint herein. The federal action was dismissed because plaintiff failed to establish standing. That is, she did not own the shares that were allegedly stolen, instead her husband, Alkiviades Meimaris did, although she claimed she inherited those shares (see Parker Madison Partners v. Airbnb, Inc., 184 A.D.3d 544, 545, 124 N.Y.S.3d 547 [1st Dept. 2020] [“the issue of plaintiff's injury was ‘necessarily ․ decided’ in the prior federal action between the parties, and plaintiff was granted a ‘full and fair opportunity to contest’ that finding”], quoting Buechel v. Bain, 97 N.Y.2d 295, 303–304, 740 N.Y.S.2d 252, 766 N.E.2d 914 [2001], cert denied 535 U.S. 1096, 122 S.Ct. 2293, 152 L.Ed.2d 1051 [2002]).
While plaintiff brought the federal action in her capacity as representative of Alkiviades Meimaris's estate, she also brought individual claims, as she does here, and the dismissal of those individual claims bars plaintiff from relitigating those claims here.
Plaintiff unpersuasively relies on the fact that the federal action was dismissed without prejudice. “[W]here a case is dismissed for lack of Article III standing ․ that disposition cannot be entered with prejudice, and instead must be dismissed without prejudice” (Katz v. Donna Karan Co., L.L.C., 872 F.3d 114, 121 [2d Cir.2017]). As the motion court observed, that does not mean that plaintiff may simply litigate elsewhere.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 2521
Decided: June 18, 2024
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)