Marinelli v. Di Nardo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marinelli v. Di Nardo

115 A.D.2d 990, 497 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55380

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.2d 990 (Marinelli v. Di Nardo) 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

Marinelli v. Di Nardo, 115 A.D.2d 990, 497 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55380 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the memorandum decision at Special Term (Patlow, J.). We add only that a different result is not required by Clemens v Apple (65 NY2d 746) or Ryan v New York Tel. Co. (62 NY2d 494), both of which were decided subsequent to Special Term’s decision. We have reviewed the record with due consideration to the factors applicable to a determination of whether plaintiff was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the causality issue in the no-fault arbitration forum (see, Clemens v Apple, supra). We find that the record amply supports the order denying defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on the ground of collateral estoppel. (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Patlow, J.—partial summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the memorandum decision at Special Term (Patlow, J.). We add only that a different result is not required by Clemens v Apple (65 NY2d 746) or Ryan v New York Tel. Co. (62 NY2d 494), both of which were decided subsequent to Special Term’s decision. We have reviewed the record with due consideration to the factors applicable to a determination of whether plaintiff was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the causality issue in the no-fault arbitration forum (see, Clemens v Apple, supra). We find that the record amply supports the order denying defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on the ground of collateral estoppel. (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Patlow, J.—partial summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 990, 497 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marinelli-v-di-nardo-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack