Mentiply II: The Appellate Division Re-Affirms the Breadth of New York’s “Same-Transaction” Test for Res Judicata

Introduction

In Mentiply v. Foster, 2025 NY Slip Op 03370 (“Mentiply II”), the Appellate Division, Third Department re-examined a long-running lakeside dispute over access between two neighboring families on Lake George. The controversy, first litigated in Mentiply v. Foster, 201 A.D.3d 1051 (3d Dept 2022) (“Mentiply I”), concerned whether the Mentiply family could drive over the Foster parcel to reach their lower-lying peninsula lot. After losing on theories of adverse possession and prescriptive easement in Mentiply I, the Mentiplys—now acting through a trust—filed a new action seeking a declaration that their 1957 deeded footpath also includes vehicular rights. The defendants invoked res judicata, asserting that all claims regarding vehicular access had already been—or could have been—litigated in the prior action. Supreme Court agreed and dismissed; the Third Department has now affirmed, crafting a potent reaffirmation of New York’s “same transaction or series of transactions” approach to claim preclusion.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court held:

The doctrine of res judicata bars the Mentiply trust’s new claims because they arise from the identical nucleus of operative facts that underpinned Mentiply I.
Privity exists between the current plaintiff (the trustee) and the prior plaintiff (the Mentiply estate), so the bar extends to the trust.
The fact that the present suit relies on a different legal theory (interpretation of an express easement) and seeks a different remedy (declaratory/injunctive relief) is immaterial; what matters is that the factual transaction—vehicular use of the Foster parcel—remains the same.
Because the declaration sought undergirded all accompanying causes of action (injunction, nuisance, breach of easement), the entire complaint was properly dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court anchored its holding on a quartet of authoritative precedents:

O’Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353 (1981). Established that once a claim is finally determined, “all other claims arising out of the same transaction … are barred, even if based upon a different theory or seeking a different remedy.”
Parker v. Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 N.Y.2d 343 (1999). Reiterated the full-and-fair-opportunity requirement and the expansive reach of claim preclusion.
Jeda Capital-56, LLC v. Potsdam Assoc., LLC, 225 A.D.3d 988 (3d Dept 2024). Supplies the modern articulation of the “pragmatic same-transaction test” and was heavily quoted.
Simmons v. Trans Express Inc., 37 N.Y.3d 107 (2021). The Court of Appeals’ latest discussion of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments §24 factors (time, space, origin, motivation, convenience, expectations).

Supporting citations included Matter of Barnes v. Venettozzi, 210 A.D.3d 1171 (3d Dept 2022) and Xiao Yang Chen v. Fischer, 6 N.Y.3d 94 (2005), providing guidance on privity and exceptions.

Legal Reasoning

Final Judgment on the Merits. Mentiply I proceeded through a non-jury trial, judgment, post-trial motion, and appellate affirmance—leaving nothing interlocutory.
Privity. The trustee stands in the shoes of the estate: both represent the same beneficial owners and property interest. Under Matter of Falck, privity need not be formal—substantial identity of interests suffices.
Same Transaction Test.
- Time/Space: Both suits revolve around the physical boundary between the Mentiply and Foster parcels on Crow Point.
- Origin/Motivation: Each lawsuit’s impetus was respondents’ obstruction of perceived vehicular access.
- Convenient Trial Unit: Evidence of historical use of the footpath was already introduced in Mentiply I; nothing new was required.
- Expectations: Parties negotiated a temporary stipulation during Mentiply I, showing that vehicular rights were squarely in the parties’ contemplation.
Different Theory, Same Facts. The Court re-emphasized the oft-overlooked point that res judicata bars not only claims that were litigated but also those that could have been raised. The trustee’s “express-easement interpretation” theory was available—and actually tangentially argued—during Mentiply I.
Collateral Claims Dependent on the Barred Declaration. Once the declaratory causes failed, the derivative claims for injunction, nuisance, and breach necessarily collapsed.

Impact

The decision amplifies three practical messages for New York practitioners:

Plead Broadly or Forever Hold Your Peace. Litigants must amass every cognizable cause of action stemming from a dispute in the initial suit. Post-judgment “second-bite” strategies predicated on alternative theories risk automatic dismissal.
Express Easement Litigation Must Address Scope Up-Front. Where an easement’s boundaries may later be disputed, plaintiffs should seek a declaration in the first action, even if simultaneously pressing adverse possession or prescription claims.
Trust/Successor Status Offers No Shield. The Court’s privity analysis underscores that estate planning maneuvers will not circumvent claim preclusion.

More broadly, Mentiply II strengthens New York’s alignment with the Restatement’s transactional approach, reducing forum shopping and piecemeal litigation. Future real-property litigants—particularly in boundary and easement disputes—will confront a high bar when attempting to revisit access rights after an initial adjudication.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion): A rule that prevents parties (and those in privity) from re-litigating claims that were—or could have been—decided in a previous lawsuit with a final judgment.
Privity: A close or successive relationship to a party, such that one is bound by the first party’s litigation efforts. Examples include heirs, trustees, corporate affiliates, or anyone who takes property from a litigant.
Same-Transaction Test: A flexible standard considering whether two lawsuits share a common factual grouping in time, space, origin, or motivation, and whether they would naturally be tried together.
Express Easement vs. Prescriptive Easement:
- An express easement is a written grant of use rights (here, a “footpath”). Its scope is interpreted from the deed language and surrounding circumstances.
- A prescriptive easement is acquired through long, open, notorious, and adverse use (akin to “use adverse possession”).

Conclusion

Mentiply II cements a critical procedural principle: litigants get one comprehensive opportunity to resolve all claims sounding from a single property-access dispute. By reaffirming the breadth of res judicata and the pragmatic same-transaction test, the Third Department promotes judicial economy, curbs duplicative suits, and encourages holistic pleading strategies at a dispute’s inception. For real-property and easement litigation in New York, the message is unequivocal—“use it or lose it” applies not only to property rights but also to the causes of action asserting them.