Doe v. Esposito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Doe v. Esposito

114 A.D.2d 992, 495 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54040

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

DecidedNovember 25, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 114 A.D.2d 992 (Doe v. Esposito) 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

Doe v. Esposito, 114 A.D.2d 992, 495 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54040 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Jiudice, J.), entered April 26, 1985, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, plaintiff’s motion is granted to the extent that she is awarded summary judgment as to liability for the recovery of damages for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress; upon searching the record, her cause of action sounding in negligence in dismissed, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for an assessment of damages.

Inasmuch as defendant, in prior proceedings, acknowledged under oath that he did, in fact, rape his daughter, he is precluded from relitigating the identical facts underlying this civil complaint (see, S. T Grand, Inc. v City of New York, 32 NY2d 300; Read v Sacco, 49 AD2d 471). Since the complaint is based on intentional and willful conduct, the cause of action sounding in negligence is dismissed. The only remaining issue is the amount of damages sustained by plaintiff as a result of defendant’s conduct. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Jiudice, J.), entered April 26, 1985, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, plaintiff’s motion is granted to the extent that she is awarded summary judgment as to liability for the recovery of damages for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress; upon searching the record, her cause of action sounding in negligence in dismissed, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for an assessment of damages.

Inasmuch as defendant, in prior proceedings, acknowledged under oath that he did, in fact, rape his daughter, he is precluded from relitigating the identical facts underlying this civil complaint (see, S. T Grand, Inc. v City of New York, 32 NY2d 300; Read v Sacco, 49 AD2d 471). Since the complaint is based on intentional and willful conduct, the cause of action sounding in negligence is dismissed. The only remaining issue is the amount of damages sustained by plaintiff as a result of defendant’s conduct. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 992, 495 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-esposito-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack