of Motion, "sworn to September 10, 2001 ("Pltf. Aff.") . The facts
set forth below are taken from the record in this action.
2. Plaintiffs concede, and indeed affirmatively assert
the position that the alleged criminality of defendant’s medical
treatment and the alleged illegality of the confidentiality
provision in the Settlement Agreement and General Release were in
fact raised in the previous action (Pltf. Aff. ¶¶ 2, 6) . Plaintiffs
also concede, in the very first paragraph of their affidavit, that
the principle of res judicata applies not just to claims actually
raised but also to relevant issues that could have been litigated
(Pltf. Aff. i) . It thus is clear that defendant’s motion must be
granted.
3. Plaintiffs attempt to wriggle out of the situation
by arguing that this Court did not expressly refer to their claim
of criminality in its decision and order denying their motion to
vacate the general release (Pltf. Aff. ¶¶ 12; Affirmation in Support
of Motion for Dismissal of Action of Laura R. Shapiro: dated August
10, 2001 ("Shapiro Aff."), ex. I). First, the Court was not
obligated to reiterate every argument plaintiffs made. Second, if
plaintiffs believed that the Court overlooked an important argument
the remedy at that point would have been a motion for reargument,
not a new lawsuit. CPLR 2221(d).
Click for In Defense of the First Amendment