Friedman v. Deckoff, Krishnasastry & Doscher, M.D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Friedman v. Deckoff, Krishnasastry & Doscher, M.D.

222 A.D.2d 648, 636 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13952

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 648 (Friedman v. Deckoff, Krishnasastry & Doscher, M.D.) 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

Friedman v. Deckoff, Krishnasastry & Doscher, M.D., 222 A.D.2d 648, 636 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13952 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated January 11, 1995, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of collateral estoppel.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that the "party invoking the doctrine of collateral estoppel must show that the critical issues in the instant action [were] necessarily decided in the prior action and that the party against whom estoppel is sought has been afforded a full and fair opportunity to contest that issue” (Weinstein Enters. v Morini, 217 AD2d 615; see also, Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500-501; New York Site Dev. Corp. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 217 AD2d 699; Weber v Kessler, 177 AD2d 843). Here, a review of the record demonstrates that the defendants have failed to discharge their burden in this respect. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of collateral estoppel. Thompson, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated January 11, 1995, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of collateral estoppel.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that the "party invoking the doctrine of collateral estoppel must show that the critical issues in the instant action [were] necessarily decided in the prior action and that the party against whom estoppel is sought has been afforded a full and fair opportunity to contest that issue” (Weinstein Enters. v Morini, 217 AD2d 615; see also, Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500-501; New York Site Dev. Corp. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 217 AD2d 699; Weber v Kessler, 177 AD2d 843). Here, a review of the record demonstrates that the defendants have failed to discharge their burden in this respect. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of collateral estoppel. Thompson, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 648, 636 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-deckoff-krishnasastry-doscher-md-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack