When cases are dismissed, they are dismissed with or without prejudice. This term means whether the matter can be brought again. If dismissed without prejudice, then the plaintiff is permitted to recommence the action. Traditionally, dismissals at the beginning of the case are based upon the pleadings. Some of the dismissals (as in CPLR 3211(a)(7)) are without prejudice; some (as in CPLR 3211(a)(1)) are with prejudice.
In Pritsker v Zamansky LLC 2021 NY Slip Op 02767 Decided on May 04, 2021 Appellate Division, First Department we see the latter.
“This action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata (claim preclusion) (see generally Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 ). The dismissal of plaintiff’s 2017 action was on the merits, and not, as plaintiff argues, based on pleading defects (Pritsker v Zamansky LLC, Sup Ct, NY County, Nov. 19, 2018, Nervo, J., index No. 150595/17; see Feigen v Advance Capital Mgt. Corp., 146 AD2d 556, 558 [1st Dept 1989]). Thus, plaintiff is barred from asserting his previously-pleaded causes of action for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. Plaintiff is also barred from asserting his “new” fraudulent inducement and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action, because at bottom, they arise out of the same transactions as his previously pleaded causes of action. Claim preclusion bars plaintiff’s claims against Jacob Zamansky as well as Zamansky LLC because both were named as defendants in the 2017 action and Jacob Zamansky is in privity with Zamansky LLC (see Rojas v Romanoff, 186 AD3d 103, 108, 112 [1st Dept 2020]). Based on the foregoing, we do not reach the other bases defendants articulate for dismissal.”