precise issue bar in New York

2002In order to invoke the doctrine, the proponent must demonstrate that the precise issue at bar was decided in the prior proceeding and is decisive of the present matter (see, e.g., Schwartz v Public Adm’r of County of Bronx, 24 NY2d 65, 71 ).

1994Bearing in mind that opinions must be read in the setting of the particular cases and as the product of preoccupation with their special facts (see, Matter of Curcio v Boyle, 147 AD2d 194, 197 ), neither of the cases cited by the majority supports its conclusion as the precise issue at bar was not in controversy.

1986While no court prior to Mitchell (supra) had addressed the precise issue at bar, in Swann v Gastonia Hous.

1982In Ford v Owens (supra, p 171) the word “published” in the phrase “last preceding published United States Census” was not taken to mean the final, official report of the Bureau of the Census as compiled and bound in certain volumes, but rather “its usual general meaning, which is thus given by Webster: ‘To make public; to make known to people in general * * * to make public in a newspaper, book, circular, or the like.’ ” (160 SC, at p 177.) Although there appears to be no New York State judicial authority addressing the precise issue at bar, the decision of the New York State Court of Appeals

1982In Matter of Schneider v Rockefeller (supra), the court considered language in section 4 of article III of the New York State Constitution stating that the latest Federal census shall be controlling for purposes of State legislative apportionment “in so far as such census and the tabulation thereof purport to give the information necessary therefor.” The court held (31 NY2d, at pp 435-436) that the constitutional requirement was satisfied by the use of “corrected 1970 Federal census data — so-called ‘third-count’ tabulations” as such was the “best available” to the joint legislative committee

1936McKnight v. Glynn ( 56 Misc. 35 ) is a case dealing with the precise issue at bar.