CANGRO v. REITANO (2018)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered May 3, 2017, which denied, as frivolous, plaintiff's motion for an award of damages and sanctions, and to direct defendant to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, and which dismissed the action with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Pro se plaintiff claims that defendant, a former attorney of and guardian ad litem for her at various times between 2002 and 2004, engaged in conduct that amounted to, inter alia, gross negligence, defamation and fraudulent misrepresentation while fulfilling her representative capacities.  Plaintiff's claims in this fourth successive action commenced against defendant, are based upon the same transaction or series of transactions previously considered in the prior actions (see 130 A.D.3d 486, 11 N.Y.S.3d 855 [1st Dept. 2015], appeal dismissed 26 N.Y.3d 1021, 20 N.Y.S.3d 334, 41 N.E.3d 1149 [2015];  92 A.D.3d 483, 937 N.Y.S.2d 856 [1st Dept. 2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 965, 958 N.Y.S.2d 326, 982 N.E.2d 89 [2012] ) and are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.  Plaintiff has not alleged any new causes of action, nor has she demonstrated that she was denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the prior actions (see generally Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v. Lopez, 46 N.Y.2d 481, 414 N.Y.S.2d 308, 386 N.E.2d 1328 [1979] ).

Appellant is prohibited from making any further filings in this Court against respondent related to appellant's divorce, respondent's representation of her in that proceeding, or the guardianship without prior leave of this Court.