As an example of suing too fast, Chapman v Faustin  2016 NY Slip Op 30321(U)  February 23, 2016  Supreme Court, New York County  Docket Number: 157736/15  Judge: Cynthia S. Kern stands out.  The basics are that Plaintiff hired defendant to be his accountant and run the shop.  Defendant allowed a 32 acre parcel of land to be taken away for the failure to pay taxes.  Instead of taking a breath and sizing up the situation, Plaintiff sued Faustin for a small portion of the damages in Small Claims Court and received $ 2500.  He turned around and sued for a lot more.  Bad choice.

“In the instant action, this court finds that the amended complaint must be dismissed on  the basis of res judicata. The doctrine of res judicala, or claim preclusion, “provides that as to the parties in a litigation and those in privity with them, a judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the issues of fact and questions of law necessarily decided therein in any subsequent action.” Singleton Mgt. v. C’ompere. 243 A.D.2d 213, 215 (1st Dept 1998 ). This doctrine is applied when the two causes of action have such a measure of identity that a different judgment in the second would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the first.” Id. Further, even if certain claims were not litigated in the prior action, claims brought later will be barred by res judicata if they “could have been asserted in the first action and [plaintiff] had a full and fair opportunity to litigate those claims in that action.” Santiago v. New  York Board of Health, 81 A.D.3d 179, 181 ( 1st Dept 2004). This court finds that the amended complaint is barred by the doctrine of res julhcata on the grounds that plaintiff Chapman could have asserted the claims in this action against defendant Faustin in the small claims action but failed to do so and the claims in this action are  essentially identical to the claim put forth in the small claims action. In the small claims action, plaintiff sought damages against Faustin for failing to provide proper accounting services which allegedly resulted in plaintiffs’ loss of the subject premises. Here, plaintiff Chapman again seeks to recover against Faustin and Faustin PC for failing to provide proper accounting services which allegedly resulted in plaintiffs loss of the subject premises. Although plaintiffs’ amended complaint asserts many causes of action and purports to assert new theories of liability against defendants based on the alleged existence of a joint venture partnership and other actions taken by defendants, the crux of each of plaintiffs’ claims against defendants is that they failed to render proper accounting services to the plaintiff resulting in the loss of the subject premises. Thus, the amended complaint is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Indeed, the doctrine of res judicata holds that “once a claim is brought to a final conclusion all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy.'” O’Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353. 354 (1981).”[W]hen alternative theories are available to recover what is essentially the same relief for harm arising out of the same or related facts such as would constitute a single “factual grouping’, the circumstance that the theories involve materially different elements of proof will not justify presenting the claim by two different actions”, O ‘Brian, 54 N.Y.2d at 357. “