green
Positive treatment
Trending · 308 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 1×
12.8 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 41 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. City of Chico
cercla is a strict liability statute, one of the purposes of which is to shift the cost of cleaning up environmental harm from the taxpayers to the parties who benefitted from the disposal of the wastes that caused the harm.
discussed
Cited "see"
Bonner v. Lynott
Although there is no private cause of action pursuant to CPLR 4504 ( see Burton v Matteliano , 81 AD3d 1272, 1275 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 703 [2011]; Waldron v Ball Corp. , 210 AD2d 611, 614 [1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 803 [1995]; see generally Lightman v Flaum , 97 NY2d 128, 136-137 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]), a patient may maintain a cause of action for breach of confidentiality against his or her physician resulting from the unauthorized disclosure of medical information ( see Chanko v American Broadcasting Cos.
discussed
Cited "see"
Charlene Simmons v. Trans Express Inc
We have explained that “the fundamental inquiry is whether relitigation should be permitted in a particular case in light of what are often competing policy considerations, including fairness to the parties, conservation of the resources of the court and the litigants, and the societal interests in consistent and accurate results” (id. at 153; accord Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 304 [2001], cert denied sub nom Bain v Buechel, 535 US 1096 [2002]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Zegelstein v. Roth Law Firm PLLC
The ruling of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which dismissed plaintiffs' complaint in the underlying fraud action for failure to state a claim ( Zegelstein v Choudhry , 2017 WL 4737263 , 2017 US Dist LEXIS 173207 [SD NY 2017]), collaterally estops plaintiffs from arguing that but for defendants' negligence in failing to timely serve the defendant doctors in the underlying action with the summons or timely seek an extension, they would have prevailed in the underlying matter ( Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer , 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]; Wei…
discussed
Cited "see"
LaBuda v. LaBuda
Thus, even if the question were properly before us, we would be unable to determine whether the issues raised here were also "clearly raised in [the] prior . . . proceeding and decided against [plaintiff] in a final judgment on the merits after a full and fair opportunity to be heard" ( Rosen v Kaplan , 161 AD3d 1355 , 1356 [2018] [internal quotation marks and citations [*4]omitted]; see generally Buechel v Bain , 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Holloway v. City of Albany
The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel must first demonstrate "the identity of the issues in the present litigation and the prior determination," at which point the burden shifts to the other party to establish that it lacked a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action or proceeding ( Rosen v Kaplan , 161 AD3d 1355 , 1356 [2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Buechel v Bain , 97 NY2d 295, 304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]).
discussed
Cited "see"
D., ROBERT M. v. STERLING, FRANK W.
“A criminal conviction may be given collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent civil litigation if there is an identity of issues and a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the [criminal] action” (Hooks v Middlebrooks, 99 AD2d 663, 663 [1984]; see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Morrow v. Gallagher
“The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel bears the burden of proving that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior proceeding, and is decisive of the present action” (City of New York v College Point Sports Assn., Inc., 61 AD3d at 42 ; see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]; D’Arata v New York Cent.
discussed
Cited "see"
Morrow v. Gallagher
“The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel bears the burden of proving that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior proceeding, and is decisive of the present action” (City of New York v College Point Sports Assn., Inc., 61 AD3d at 42 ; see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]; D’Arata v New York Cent.
cited
Cited "see"
Khan-Soleil v. Rashad
Corp., 93 AD3d 627, 628 [2012]; see generally Lightman v Flaum, 97 NY2d 128, 133 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]).
cited
Cited "see"
Khan-Soleil v. Rashad
Corp., 93 AD3d 627, 628 [2012]; see generally Lightman v Flaum, 97 NY2d 128, 133 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sherwyn Toppin Marketing Consultants, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority
“The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel bears the burden of proving that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior proceeding, and is decisive of the present action” (City of New York v College Point Sports Assn., Inc., 61 AD3d 33, 42 [2009]; see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]; Maiello v Kirchner, 98 AD3d 481, 482 [2012]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sherwyn Toppin Marketing Consultants, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority
“The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel bears the burden of proving that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior proceeding, and is decisive of the present action” (City of New York v College Point Sports Assn., Inc., 61 AD3d 33, 42 [2009]; see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]; Maiello v Kirchner, 98 AD3d 481, 482 [2012]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Nappy v. Nappy
“The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue which has necessarily been decided in a prior action and is determinative of the issues disputed in the present action, provided that there was a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now alleged to be controlling” (Capellupo v Nassau Health Care Corp., 97 AD3d 619, 621 [2012]; see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Nappy v. Nappy
“The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue which has necessarily been decided in a prior action and is determinative of the issues disputed in the present action, provided that there was a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now alleged to be controlling” (Capellupo v Nassau Health Care Corp., 97 AD3d 619, 621 [2012]; see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Feldman v. Planning Board of Rochester
Conservation, 6 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2004], lv dismissed and denied 3 NY3d 736 [2004]; see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]; see See Why Gerard, LLC v Gramro Entertainment Corp., 94 AD3d 1205, 1206 [2012]; Matter of Martin v Central Off.
discussed
Cited "see"
Feldman v. Planning Board of Rochester
Conservation, 6 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2004], lv dismissed and denied 3 NY3d 736 [2004]; see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]; see See Why Gerard, LLC v Gramro Entertainment Corp., 94 AD3d 1205, 1206 [2012]; Matter of Martin v Central Off.
discussed
Cited "see"
Maiello v. Kirchner
“The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel bears the burden of proving that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior proceeding, and is decisive of the present action” (City of New York v College Point Sports Assn., Inc., 61 AD3d at 42 ; see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Maiello v. Kirchner
“The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel bears the burden of proving that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior proceeding, and is decisive of the present action” (City of New York v College Point Sports Assn., Inc., 61 AD3d at 42 ; see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Egbert Square Realty, LLC v. 112-114 Corp.
The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue “which has necessarily been decided in a prior action and is determinative of the issues raised in the present action, provided that there was a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now alleged to be controlling” (Simpson v Alter, 78 AD3d 813, 814 [2010]; see Storman v Storman, 90 AD3d 895 [2011]; Leung v Suffolk Plate Glass Co., Inc., 78 AD3d 663 [2010]). “ ‘[It] is a flexible doctrine grounded in the facts and realities of a particular litigation which should not be rigidly or mechanically applied since it…
discussed
Cited "see"
Nachum v. Ezagui
“The two elements that must be satisfied to invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel are that (1) the identical issue was decided in the prior action and is decisive in the present action, and (2) the party to be precluded from relitigating the issue had a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior issue” (Luscher v Arrua, 21 AD3d at 1007 ; see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]; Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v County of Westchester, 65 AD3d at 1227 ; Franklin Dev.
discussed
Cited "see"
NIAGARA FRONTIER TRANSPORTATION AUT, BURTON, IRIC v
We conclude that the court properly granted those parts of the motions of NFTA, Matteliano and Jacob with respect to the first joint cause of action against them, inasmuch as there is no private cause of action pursuant to CPLR 4504 (see Doe, 268 AD2d at 186-187 ; Waldron v Ball Corp., 210 AD2d 611, 614 , lv denied 85 NY2d 803 ; see generally Lightman v Flaum, 97 NY2d 128, 136-137 , cert denied 535 US 1096 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Burkhart v. Modica
Plaintiff is thus barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from relitigating that claim in the instant action, inasmuch as that doctrine “precludes a party from raising, in subsequent litigation, any issue that was decided in prior litigation so long as the issue was necessarily determined in the prior litigation and the party to be estopped had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue” (Tuper v Tuper, 34 AD3d 1280, 1282 [2006]; see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Burton v. Matteliano
We conclude that the court properly granted those parts of the motions of NFTA, Matteliano and Jacob with respect to the first joint cause of action against them, inasmuch as there is no private cause of action pursuant to CPLR 4504 (see Doe, 268 AD2d at 186-187 ; Waldron v Ball Corp., 210 AD2d 611, 614 [1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 803 [1995]; see generally Lightman v Flaum, 97 NY2d 128, 136-137 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]).
discussed
Cited "see"
BURKHART, JR., WILLIAM E. v. MODICA, STEVEN V.
Plaintiff is thus barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from relitigating that claim in the instant action, inasmuch as that doctrine “precludes a party from raising, in -3- 1505 CA 10-00401 subsequent litigation, any issue that was decided in prior litigation so long as the issue was necessarily determined in the prior litigation and the party to be estopped had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue” (Tuper v Tuper, 34 AD3d 1280, 1282 ; see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 , cert denied 535 US 1096 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
St. Barnabas Hospital v. Country Wide Insurance
Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, since the only issues decided in connection with the motion for summary judgment on its cause of action to recover no-fault medical payments were the questions of whether the defendant had failed to pay or deny the relevant claim within the statutory time frame, and whether the defendant had received verification of that claim, the defendant is not collaterally estopped from seeking to modify the amount of the judgment that was in satisfaction of the plaintiffs claim, based upon the contention that the policy limits have been partially exhausted (see H…
cited
Cited "see"
In re the Rehabilitation of Frontier Insurance
Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500 [1984]; see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]; Zinter Handling, Inc. v Britton, 46 AD3d 998, 1000 [2007]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mohan v. Sharma
Thus, the issue raised by the husband here, that of the wife’s alleged abandonment of him since June 2005 is not barred by collateral estoppel principles (see O’Connell v Corcoran, 1 NY3d 179, 188 [2003]; Nikrooz v Nikrooz, 167 AD2d 334 [1990]; see generally Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]; D’Arata v New York Cent.
discussed
Cited "see"
Russo v. Irwin
Petitioner now appeals from Family Court’s order. “[W]hether to apply collateral estoppel in a particular case depends upon ‘general notions of fairness involving a practical inquiry into the realities of the litigation’ ” (Jeffreys v Griffin, 1 NY3d 34, 41 [2003], quoting Matter of Halyalkar v Board of Regents of State of N.Y., 72 NY2d 261, 268 [1988]; see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Altegra Credit Co. v. Tin Chu
“First, the identical issue necessarily must have been decided in the prior action and be decisive of the present action, and second, the party to be precluded from relitigating the issue must have had a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination” (Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449 , 455 [1985]; see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]).
cited
Cited "see"
Church v. New York State Thruway Authority
Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500 [1984]; see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wende C. v. United Methodist Church
Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 303 [1983], quoting Restatement [Second] of Torts § 46, Comment d; see Lightman v Flaum, 278 AD2d 373, 374 [2000], affd 97 NY2d 128 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]; see generally Howell v New York Post Co., 81 NY2d 115, 121 [1993]; Freihofer v Hearst Corp., 65 NY2d 135 , 143 [1985]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Chambers v. City of New York
The issue of whether a party has had a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior decision “requires consideration of ‘the realities of litigation’ ” (Staatsburg Water Co. v Staatsburg Fire Dist., supra at 153 [citations omitted]; see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]; Matter of Halyalkar v Board of Regents of State of N.Y., 72 NY2d 261 [1988]), and “the fundamental inquiry is whether re-litigation should be permitted in a particular case in light of what are often competing policy considerations, including fairness to the parties, conservation of…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Perez v. 76th & Broadway Owner, LLC
As such, General Glass "therein had a full and fair opportunity to fully litigate the underlying merits . . . but affirmatively chose not to by [its] own failure to comply with court orders" ( Kanat v Ochsner , 301 AD2d 456, 458 [1st Dept 2003]; accord Lodge v Fraternidad Realty Corp. , 205 AD3d 453 [1st Dept 2022]; see also Buechel v Bain , 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Perez v. 76th & Broadway Owner, LLC
As such, General Glass "therein had a full and fair opportunity to fully litigate the underlying merits . . . but affirmatively chose not to by [its] own failure to comply with court orders" ( Kanat v Ochsner , 301 AD2d 456, 458 [1st Dept 2003]; accord Lodge v Fraternidad Realty Corp. , 205 AD3d 453 [1st Dept 2022]; see also Buechel v Bain , 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matter of Jiggetts v. New York City Human Resources Admin.
Petitioner is collaterally estopped from arguing that he has standing to raise any challenges to the arbitration award that concluded that, as a per diem employee, he was not entitled to challenge respondent New York City Human Resources Administration’s termination of his employment in 1994 under the disciplinary review procedures set forth in the applicable collective bargaining agreement (see Jiggetts v New York City Human Resources, Sup Ct, NY County, Oct. 20, 2011, Huff, J., index No. 400903/11; Jiggetts v New York City Off. of Collective Bargaining, Sup Ct, NY County, Dec. 30, 2014, Bi…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
715 & Peter Davey v. Jones Hirsch Connors & Bull P.C.
Davey v Jones, 2008 WL 5061631 , 2008 US Dist LEXIS 99828 [SD NY, Dec. 1, 2008, No. 06-Civ-4206 (DC)], affd 371 Fed Appx 146, 148-149 [2d Cir 2010]; see Matter of Josey v Goord, 9 NY3d 386, 389-390 [2007]; see also Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]; see also Gramatan Home Invs.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
The People v. William Middlebrooks / The People v. Fabrice Lowe
(2×)
In our system of justice, unless the legislature has plainly laid a burden on a particular party or on the court (see Rudolph, 21 NY3d at 501 ; CPL 720.20 [1]), the burden generally rests upon the party seeking to benefit from a particular action (see People v McCartney, 38 NY2d 618, 622 [1976]; see also Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]; Matter of Priest v Hennessy, 51 NY2d 62, 69 [1980]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Klamath Irrigation District v. United States
(2×)
Id. at 1581-82 ; see also Commonwealth Edison Co. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 29, 35-36 (2000), aff'd, 271 F.3d 1327 (Fed.Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1096 , 122 S.Ct. 2293 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1051 (2002). 26 Treating the sovereign act doctrine as a prelude to a common law impossibility de fense, indeed, clashes with the underlying rationale of that doctrine and of the unmistakability doctrine, as well.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Chevron USA, Inc. v. Bronster
See, e.g., Commonwealth Edison Co. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed.Cir.2001) {en banc) ("Thus five justices ... in Eastern Enterprises agreed that regulatory actions requiring the payment of money are not takings.”), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1096 , 122 S.Ct. 2293 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1051 (2002); Holland v. Big River Minerals Corp., 181 F.3d 597, 606 (4th Cir.1999) (noting that the five Justices viewed the dispute under Due Process Clause rather than the Takings Clause "because no identifiable property interest was infringed by the legislation”), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1117 , 120 S.Ct. 9…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
M.J. Woods, Inc. v. Conopco, Inc.
A. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL The doctrine of collateral estoppel — also known as issue preclusion — operates almost identically under federal and New York State law by barring “the relitigation of an issue that was raised, litigated, and actually decided by a judgment in a prior proceeding, regardless of whether the two suits are based on the same cause of action.” Postlewaite v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 338 F.3d 42 , 47-48 (2d Cir.2003); see also Buechel v. Bain, 97 N.Y.2d 295 , 740 N.Y.S.2d 252 , 766 N.E.2d 914, 919 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1096 , 122 S.Ct. 2293 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1051 (2002); …
United States Ex Rel. Swafford
v.
Borgess Medical Center
v.
Borgess Medical Center
01-1399.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 28, 2002.
Published
Citer courts: E.D. California (1)
UNITED STATES EX REL. SWAFFORD
v.
BORGESS MEDICAL CENTER ET AL.
No. 01-1399.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 28, 2002.
1
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 24 Fed. Appx. 491.