Kartiganer Associates, P. C. v. Wehran Engineering, P. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kartiganer Associates, P. C. v. Wehran Engineering, P. C.

92 A.D.2d 911, 460 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17313

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

DecidedMarch 21, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.2d 911 (Kartiganer Associates, P. C. v. Wehran Engineering, P. C.) 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

Kartiganer Associates, P. C. v. Wehran Engineering, P. C., 92 A.D.2d 911, 460 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17313 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a libel action, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ferraro, J.), dated May 25, 1982, which, inter alla, dismissed its complaint as against [912]*912defendants Wehran Engineering, P. C., and William J. Stein. Judgment affirmed, with costs. As a defense to plaintiff’s action for libel, the respondents asserted that plaintiff was collaterally estopped to deny that it was negligent in the design of a sewage treatment plant. The thrust of the allegedly libelous publication was that the treatment plant suffers from certain limitations caused by plaintiff’s negligent design of the plant. Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate that issue in a prior lawsuit brought against it by the municipality which contracted with plaintiff to perform design work on the plant (see Schwartz v Public Administrator of County of Bronx, 24 NY2d 65, 71). There is a sufficient identity of issues between the current action and the prior one for the invocation of the doctrine of collateral estoppel (see Capital Tel. Co. v Patter sonville Tel. Co., 56 NY2d 11, 17-18; Hunt v OSR Chems., 85 AD2d 681, 682-683). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— In a libel action, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ferraro, J.), dated May 25, 1982, which, inter alla, dismissed its complaint as against [912]*912defendants Wehran Engineering, P. C., and William J. Stein. Judgment affirmed, with costs. As a defense to plaintiff’s action for libel, the respondents asserted that plaintiff was collaterally estopped to deny that it was negligent in the design of a sewage treatment plant. The thrust of the allegedly libelous publication was that the treatment plant suffers from certain limitations caused by plaintiff’s negligent design of the plant. Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate that issue in a prior lawsuit brought against it by the municipality which contracted with plaintiff to perform design work on the plant (see Schwartz v Public Administrator of County of Bronx, 24 NY2d 65, 71). There is a sufficient identity of issues between the current action and the prior one for the invocation of the doctrine of collateral estoppel (see Capital Tel. Co. v Patter sonville Tel. Co., 56 NY2d 11, 17-18; Hunt v OSR Chems., 85 AD2d 681, 682-683). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.2d 911, 460 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kartiganer-associates-p-c-v-wehran-engineering-p-c-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack