## Facts

- Property owners in Syracuse alleged municipal conduct connected to an urban rehabilitation effort interfered with their property rights.
- In 1973, the owners brought an Article 78 proceeding against the City claiming the City’s actions amounted to a de facto appropriation (inverse condemnation).
- After a nonjury trial, the 1973 proceeding was dismissed for failure to prove a de facto taking; the dismissal was affirmed on appeal and became final.
- In March 1978, the owners filed a new action that largely restated the earlier allegations and added that the City took the property by tax deed dated June 1, 1977.
- Defendants obtained dismissal on res judicata grounds with leave to replead.
- The amended complaint again repeated the earlier allegations and added broad claims that defendants trespassed from 1967 to 1978 and damaged the property.
- Defendants moved to dismiss based on res judicata, statute of limitations, and failure to serve a timely notice of claim.
- Supreme Court denied dismissal; the Appellate Division reversed, holding the entire action barred by res judicata.
- The owners appealed to the Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether res judicata bars a property owner, who previously litigated and lost a de facto appropriation claim against a municipality, from later suing for trespass damages based on the same municipal acts.
2. Whether the claims were independently barred by limitations periods and municipal notice-of-claim requirements (if res judicata did not dispose of the case).

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division.
- The Court held that a plaintiff who unsuccessfully litigates a de facto appropriation claim against a governmental entity may not later bring a trespass action seeking damages for the same acts underlying the prior suit.
- Because res judicata barred the entire action, the Court did not reach the statute of limitations or notice-of-claim questions.

## Legal Principles

- Res judicata bars later claims arising from the same transaction or factual grouping as a prior action that ended in a final judgment on the merits after a full and fair opportunity to litigate.
- Claim preclusion applies even when the later action is framed under a different legal theory and even if the theories require different elements of proof.
- A plaintiff may not split claims by relabeling the same alleged governmental interference with property as a new tort claim after losing on an earlier taking theory.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals applied a transactional view of res judicata to bar a later trespass action where the alleged trespasses were based on the same municipal conduct previously litigated and rejected as a de facto taking, preventing relitigation through a changed legal label.


O’Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353 (N.Y. 1981)