Becker v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Becker v. State

274 A.D.2d 532, 712 N.Y.S.2d 130

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 31, 2000

DocketClaim No. 96287

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 274 A.D.2d 532 (Becker v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Becker v. State, 274 A.D.2d 532, 712 N.Y.S.2d 130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), dated November 3, 1999, which denied its motion to amend the answer to include the defense of collateral estoppel and thereupon to dismiss the claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the claim is dismissed.

“The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party from litigating ‘an issue which has previously been decided against him [or her] in a proceeding in which he [or she] had a fair opportunity to fully litigate the point’ ” (Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449, 455, quoting Gilberg v Barbieri, 53 NY2d 285, 291). The issue of the State’s negligence was decided against the claimant in an arbitration proceeding conducted in connection with a Supreme Court action by a State employee against the claimant. There is nothing to suggest that the claimant was not afforded a fair opportunity to fully litigate the issue in that proceeding. Accordingly, the State’s motion for leave to amend its answer to include a defense of collateral estoppel and to dismiss the claim should have been granted (see, Jordan v Matveichik, 265 AD2d 305; Harrison v Stanton, 253 AD2d 537; Scialdone v Shah, 197 AD2d 567; Gordon v Incorporated Vil. of Lake Grove, 173 AD2d 770; Bechtel v State of New York, 105 AD2d 677; Pratt v State of New York, 181 Misc 2d 488). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Altman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), dated November 3, 1999, which denied its motion to amend the answer to include the defense of collateral estoppel and thereupon to dismiss the claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the claim is dismissed.

“The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party from litigating ‘an issue which has previously been decided against him [or her] in a proceeding in which he [or she] had a fair opportunity to fully litigate the point’ ” (Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449, 455, quoting Gilberg v Barbieri, 53 NY2d 285, 291). The issue of the State’s negligence was decided against the claimant in an arbitration proceeding conducted in connection with a Supreme Court action by a State employee against the claimant. There is nothing to suggest that the claimant was not afforded a fair opportunity to fully litigate the issue in that proceeding. Accordingly, the State’s motion for leave to amend its answer to include a defense of collateral estoppel and to dismiss the claim should have been granted (see, Jordan v Matveichik, 265 AD2d 305; Harrison v Stanton, 253 AD2d 537; Scialdone v Shah, 197 AD2d 567; Gordon v Incorporated Vil. of Lake Grove, 173 AD2d 770; Bechtel v State of New York, 105 AD2d 677; Pratt v State of New York, 181 Misc 2d 488). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D.2d 532, 712 N.Y.S.2d 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/becker-v-state-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack