## Facts

- Petitioners were part-time estate tax attorneys in the noncompetitive class of the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance.
- During 1975, 44 such attorneys resigned or were removed and were replaced by attorneys affiliated with a different political party.
- Before all removals were completed, a class proceeding (Matter of Nolan v. Tully) was brought on behalf of all estate tax attorneys who had been or might be discharged, seeking reinstatement and other relief.
- Petitioners were members of the Nolan class, although some were discharged after Nolan was commenced.
- Nolan chiefly pursued statutory tenure protections under Civil Service Law § 75, and also alleged state and federal constitutional violations; the petition was dismissed, and appellate review ended with a final adverse judgment for the class.
- While Nolan was pending, petitioners filed a separate CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement; by agreement it was held in abeyance until Nolan concluded.
- After Nolan became final, the article 78 petition was dismissed on res judicata grounds and that dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
- Petitioners argued they could proceed because their separate petition specifically alleged politically motivated terminations and relied on Elrod v. Burns, decided after the intermediate appellate decision in Nolan.

## Issues

1. Whether members of a certified class are barred by res judicata from bringing a later Article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement based on the same dismissals.
2. Whether res judicata can be avoided by asserting an additional legal theory—political patronage dismissal under the First and Fourteenth Amendments—supported by an intervening Supreme Court decision.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the petition.
- The court held that petitioners’ claims were barred by res judicata because Nolan finally adjudicated the same cause of action arising from the 1975 removals.
- The court ruled that asserting a new legal theory after final judgment does not defeat claim preclusion, even if the theory was later clarified in intervening decisional law.
- The court held the class judgment in Nolan bound all class members, including those who did not actively litigate and those discharged after the class proceeding began.

## Legal Principles

- Res judicata (claim preclusion) bars later litigation arising from the same transaction or series of transactions, including legal theories that were not raised but could have been raised in the prior action.
- A party cannot avoid claim preclusion by tendering an additional legal issue after final adjudication merely because subsequent appellate decisions more clearly articulated that issue.
- Final judgments in certified class actions bind all class members within the class definition, regardless of their level of participation in the earlier litigation.
- Institutional interests in finality generally outweigh reopening adjudicated disputes based solely on later developments in decisional law.

## Conclusion

Because the earlier class proceeding finally adjudicated the discharged attorneys’ reinstatement claim arising from the same 1975 removals, res judicata barred a later Article 78 petition asserting a patronage-dismissal theory premised on intervening federal constitutional doctrine.


Matter of Gowan v. Tully, 45 N.Y.2d 32, 407 N.Y.S.2d 650, 379 N.E.2d 177 (1978)