SCIPIO, JACKIE D. v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

SCIPIO, JACKIE D. v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P.

100 A.D.3d 1452, 953 N.Y.S.2d 776

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2012

DocketCA 12-00382

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 100 A.D.3d 1452 (SCIPIO, JACKIE D. v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P.) 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

SCIPIO, JACKIE D. v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., 100 A.D.3d 1452, 953 N.Y.S.2d 776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga *1453 County (Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), entered April 27, 2011. The order granted the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this personal injury action, plaintiff appeals from an order granting the motion of defendants for leave to amend the answer to assert the affirmative defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on those doctrines. We reject plaintiffs contention that those doctrines do not apply to the facts before us. We note at the outset that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel “are applicable to give conclusive effect to the quasi-judicial determinations of administrative agencies” (Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 499 [1984]; see Yoonessi v State of New York, 289 AD2d 998, 1000 [2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 609 [2002], cert denied 537 US 1047 [2002]). Furthermore, contrary to plaintiffs contention, defendants “ ‘demonstrate[d] the identically and decisiveness of the issue’ ” decided in the prior administrative proceeding, and plaintiff failed to establish “ ‘the absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in [the] prior . . . proceeding’ ” (Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 349 [1999], quoting Ryan, 62 NY2d at 501).

Contrary to plaintiffs further contention, Supreme Court did not abuse or improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that part of defendants’ motion for leave to amend the answer. “Leave to amend the pleadings ‘shall be freely given’ absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay” (Mc Caskey, Davies & Assoc. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 59 NY2d 755, 757 [1983], quoting CPLR 3025 [b]; see Bryndle v Safety-Kleen Sys., Inc., 66 AD3d 1396, 1396 [2009]) and, here, plaintiff failed to establish either prejudice or surprise resulting from the delay. Present — Scudder, EJ., Fahey, Garni, Valentino and Martoche, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga *1453 County (Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), entered April 27, 2011. The order granted the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this personal injury action, plaintiff appeals from an order granting the motion of defendants for leave to amend the answer to assert the affirmative defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on those doctrines. We reject plaintiffs contention that those doctrines do not apply to the facts before us. We note at the outset that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel “are applicable to give conclusive effect to the quasi-judicial determinations of administrative agencies” (Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 499 [1984]; see Yoonessi v State of New York, 289 AD2d 998, 1000 [2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 609 [2002], cert denied 537 US 1047 [2002]). Furthermore, contrary to plaintiffs contention, defendants “ ‘demonstrate[d] the identically and decisiveness of the issue’ ” decided in the prior administrative proceeding, and plaintiff failed to establish “ ‘the absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in [the] prior . . . proceeding’ ” (Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 349 [1999], quoting Ryan, 62 NY2d at 501).

Contrary to plaintiffs further contention, Supreme Court did not abuse or improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that part of defendants’ motion for leave to amend the answer. “Leave to amend the pleadings ‘shall be freely given’ absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay” (Mc Caskey, Davies & Assoc. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 59 NY2d 755, 757 [1983], quoting CPLR 3025 [b]; see Bryndle v Safety-Kleen Sys., Inc., 66 AD3d 1396, 1396 [2009]) and, here, plaintiff failed to establish either prejudice or surprise resulting from the delay. Present — Scudder, EJ., Fahey, Garni, Valentino and Martoche, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.3d 1452, 953 N.Y.S.2d 776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scipio-jackie-d-v-wal-mart-stores-east-lp-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack