Taylor v. Pescatore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taylor v. Pescatore

102 A.D.2d 867, 477 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19073

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

DecidedJune 18, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 102 A.D.2d 867 (Taylor v. Pescatore) 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

Taylor v. Pescatore, 102 A.D.2d 867, 477 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19073 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kartell, J.), dated July 26, 1983, which denied their motion for partial summary judgment against defendants Albert Pescatore and Edward Casulli, doing business as Apec Television, Inc., on the issue of damages, based upon a claim of collateral estoppel, arising out of an inquest against a defaulting codefendant. H Order affirmed, with costs. | An assessment of damages against a defaulting defendant may not be used to collaterally estop a nondefaulting codefendant. The mere fact that the codefendant had notice of the inquest does not constitute a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of damages (Gallivan v Pucello, 38 AD2d 876; Schwartz v Public Administrator of County of Bronx, 24 NY2d 65, 71; B.R. DeWitt, Inc. v Hall, 19 NY2d 141, 145; Card v Polito, 55 AD2d 123). Rubin, J. P., Boyers, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kartell, J.), dated July 26, 1983, which denied their motion for partial summary judgment against defendants Albert Pescatore and Edward Casulli, doing business as Apec Television, Inc., on the issue of damages, based upon a claim of collateral estoppel, arising out of an inquest against a defaulting codefendant. H Order affirmed, with costs. | An assessment of damages against a defaulting defendant may not be used to collaterally estop a nondefaulting codefendant. The mere fact that the codefendant had notice of the inquest does not constitute a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of damages (Gallivan v Pucello, 38 AD2d 876; Schwartz v Public Administrator of County of Bronx, 24 NY2d 65, 71; B.R. DeWitt, Inc. v Hall, 19 NY2d 141, 145; Card v Polito, 55 AD2d 123). Rubin, J. P., Boyers, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 A.D.2d 867, 477 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-pescatore-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack