Ridge v. Gold

New York Court of Appeals

Ridge v. Gold

44 N.E.3d 222, 26 N.Y.3d 1069, 23 N.Y.S.3d 147

New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 15, 2015·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), judgment insofar as appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review reversed, with costs, and motion of defendant Jay Braymiller for summary judgment dismissing the complaint denied. The record is inadequate to determine, as a [1071]*1071matter of law, whether the issue of the occurrence of an accident was addressed and decided in the workers’ compensation proceeding. Therefore, defendant Braymiller failed to meet his burden of establishing that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars plaintiff’s action against him.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein and Fahey.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), judgment insofar as appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review reversed, with costs, and motion of defendant Jay Braymiller for summary judgment dismissing the complaint denied. The record is inadequate to determine, as a [1071]*1071matter of law, whether the issue of the occurrence of an accident was addressed and decided in the workers’ compensation proceeding. Therefore, defendant Braymiller failed to meet his burden of establishing that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars plaintiff’s action against him.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein and Fahey.

Ridge v. Gold, 44 N.E.3d 222, 26 N.Y.3d 1069, 23 N.Y.S.3d 147 (N.Y. 2015).

Pincite

44 N.E.3d 222 (Ridge v. Gold) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related