Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1962–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Storman v. Stormangreen2 sentences2013Accordingly, the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable to preclude the plaintiff from bringing this action, which seeks, inter alia, a judgment declaring that the agreement is a valid and enforceable contract (see Storman v Storman, 90 AD3d 895, 897 [2011]; Wollman v Long Is. 2013Accordingly, the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable to preclude the plaintiff from bringing this action, which seeks, inter alia, a judgment declaring that the agreement is a valid and enforceable contract (see Storman v Storman, 90 AD3d 895, 897 [2011]; Wollman v Long Is. | 2 | 2 |
Schwartz v. Public Administratorgreen2 sentences2010Furthermore, the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable here because the issue of whether the tortfeasor’s vehicle was insured at the time of the accident never was litigated and decided in the Pennsylvania action (see generally Schwartz v Public Adm’r of County of Bronx, 24 NY2d 65, 71 [1969]). 1986The appellants did not have a "full and fair opportunity” to contest the prior decision, so the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable (see, Schwartz v Public Administrator of County of Bronx, 24 NY2d 65, 71 ; Restatement [Second] of Judgments § 28). | 1 | 2 |
Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v. Lopezgreen1 sentence2018Corp. v Lopez , 46 NY2d 481, 486-487 [1979]; Magic Recovery Med. & Surgical Supply Inc. v State Farm Mut. | 1 | 1 |
Halyalkar v. Board of Regentsgreen1 sentence2016As to the stipulation at trial between the plaintiff and the Silver defendants, the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable, since the issues resolved therein were not actually litigated (see Matter of Halyalkar v Board of Regents of State of N.Y., 72 NY2d 261, 267 [1988]; Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d at 456-457; M.V.B. | 1 | 1 |
Singleton Management, Inc. v. Comperegreen1 sentence2010Furthermore, the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable here because the issue of whether the plaintiff was entitled to, and deprived of, full possession of the basement of the premises never was actually litigated and decided in the Civil Court proceeding, which was settled without prejudice to this action (see Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449 , 456-457 [1985]; Brandenberg v Primus Assoc., 304 AD2d at 695 ; Singleton Mgt. v Compere, 243 AD2d 213, 217 [1998]; 1829 Caton Realty v Caton BMT Assoc., 225 AD2d at 599 ). | 1 | 1 |
Holt v. Holtgreen1 sentence2010The Pennsylvania court order which determined that the tortfeasor’s policy was void ah initio was made on the default of Rodriguez (see Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449 , 456-457 [1985]; Chambers v City of New York, 309 AD2d 81 [2003]; Holt v Holt, 262 AD2d 530, 530 [1999]; Rourke v Travelers Ins. | 1 | 1 |
In re the Estate of Huntergreen1 sentence2005Although the defendant correctly asserts that the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable under the circumstances of this case (see Matter of Hunter, 6 AD3d 117, 121 [2004], affd 4 NY3d 260 [2005]), the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
M.V.B. Collision, Inc. v. Rovt
green
1 sentence2016Collision, Inc. v Rout, 101 AD3d 830 , 831 [2012]; Pawling Lake Prop. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Brandenberg v. Primus Associates
green
1 sentence2010Furthermore, the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable here because the issue of whether the plaintiff was entitled to, and deprived of, full possession of the basement of the premises never was actually litigated and decided in the Civil Court proceeding, which was settled without prejudice to this action (see Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449 , 456-457 [1985]; Brandenberg v Primus Assoc., 304 AD2d at 695 ; Singleton Mgt. v Compere, 243 AD2d 213, 217 [1998]; 1829 Caton Realty v Caton BMT Assoc., 225 AD2d at 599 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Chambers v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2010The Pennsylvania court order which determined that the tortfeasor’s policy was void ah initio was made on the default of Rodriguez (see Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449 , 456-457 [1985]; Chambers v City of New York, 309 AD2d 81 [2003]; Holt v Holt, 262 AD2d 530, 530 [1999]; Rourke v Travelers Ins. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
1829 Caton Realty v. Caton BMT Associates
green
1 sentence2010Furthermore, the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable here because the issue of whether the plaintiff was entitled to, and deprived of, full possession of the basement of the premises never was actually litigated and decided in the Civil Court proceeding, which was settled without prejudice to this action (see Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449 , 456-457 [1985]; Brandenberg v Primus Assoc., 304 AD2d at 695 ; Singleton Mgt. v Compere, 243 AD2d 213, 217 [1998]; 1829 Caton Realty v Caton BMT Assoc., 225 AD2d at 599 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Oneida Indian Nation v. Pifer
green
1 sentence2009(See Matter of Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v Pifer, 43 AD3d 579 [3d Dept 2007]; Sterling Natl. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
In Re the Estate of Hunter
green
1 sentence2005Although the defendant correctly asserts that the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable under the circumstances of this case (see Matter of Hunter, 6 AD3d 117, 121 [2004], affd 4 NY3d 260 [2005]), the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Gilberg v. Barbieri
green
1 sentence1998Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable under the circumstances of this case (see generally, Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449 , 455; Gilberg v Barbieri, 53 NY2d 285, 291 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Crawford v. Sheriff's Department
green
1 sentence1998Such determinations, when final, indeed become conclusive and binding with respect to determining General Municipal Law § 207-a benefits (see, Matter of Delahunt v City of Oswego, 222 AD2d 1078 , lv denied 88 NY2d 801 ; Matter of De John v Town of Frankfort, 209 AD2d 938 ; Matter of Fedorczak v Dolce, 202 AD2d 668 ; Matter of Crawford v Sheriffs’ Dept., Putnam County, 152 AD2d 382 , lv denied 76 NY2d 704 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Fedorczak v. Dolce
green
1 sentence1998Such determinations, when final, indeed become conclusive and binding with respect to determining General Municipal Law § 207-a benefits (see, Matter of Delahunt v City of Oswego, 222 AD2d 1078 , lv denied 88 NY2d 801 ; Matter of De John v Town of Frankfort, 209 AD2d 938 ; Matter of Fedorczak v Dolce, 202 AD2d 668 ; Matter of Crawford v Sheriffs’ Dept., Putnam County, 152 AD2d 382 , lv denied 76 NY2d 704 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
De John v. Town of Frankfort
green
1 sentence1998Such determinations, when final, indeed become conclusive and binding with respect to determining General Municipal Law § 207-a benefits (see, Matter of Delahunt v City of Oswego, 222 AD2d 1078 , lv denied 88 NY2d 801 ; Matter of De John v Town of Frankfort, 209 AD2d 938 ; Matter of Fedorczak v Dolce, 202 AD2d 668 ; Matter of Crawford v Sheriffs’ Dept., Putnam County, 152 AD2d 382 , lv denied 76 NY2d 704 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Delahunt v. City of Oswego
neutral
1 sentence1998Such determinations, when final, indeed become conclusive and binding with respect to determining General Municipal Law § 207-a benefits (see, Matter of Delahunt v City of Oswego, 222 AD2d 1078 , lv denied 88 NY2d 801 ; Matter of De John v Town of Frankfort, 209 AD2d 938 ; Matter of Fedorczak v Dolce, 202 AD2d 668 ; Matter of Crawford v Sheriffs’ Dept., Putnam County, 152 AD2d 382 , lv denied 76 NY2d 704 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Rodgers
green
1 sentence1962On the other hand, if it could not be definitely determined on what ground the acquittal was had in the Federal court, the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable (State v. Barton, 5 Wn. [2d] 234; State v. Orth, 107 Ohio App. 35 , appeal dismissed 167 Ohio St. 388 ; Hoag v. New Jersey, 21 N. J. 496, affd. 356 U. S. 464 , supra; People v. Rodgers, 184 App. Div. 461 , affd. 226 N. Y. 671 ). | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Hoag v. New Jersey
yellow
1 sentence1962On the other hand, if it could not be definitely determined on what ground the acquittal was had in the Federal court, the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable (State v. Barton, 5 Wn. [2d] 234; State v. Orth, 107 Ohio App. 35 , appeal dismissed 167 Ohio St. 388 ; Hoag v. New Jersey, 21 N. J. 496, affd. 356 U. S. 464 , supra; People v. Rodgers, 184 App. Div. 461 , affd. 226 N. Y. 671 ). | 1 | 1962–1962 |
State v. Orth
green
1 sentence1962On the other hand, if it could not be definitely determined on what ground the acquittal was had in the Federal court, the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable (State v. Barton, 5 Wn. [2d] 234; State v. Orth, 107 Ohio App. 35 , appeal dismissed 167 Ohio St. 388 ; Hoag v. New Jersey, 21 N. J. 496, affd. 356 U. S. 464 , supra; People v. Rodgers, 184 App. Div. 461 , affd. 226 N. Y. 671 ). | 1 | 1962–1962 |
People v. . Rodgers
green
1 sentence1962On the other hand, if it could not be definitely determined on what ground the acquittal was had in the Federal court, the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable (State v. Barton, 5 Wn. [2d] 234; State v. Orth, 107 Ohio App. 35 , appeal dismissed 167 Ohio St. 388 ; Hoag v. New Jersey, 21 N. J. 496, affd. 356 U. S. 464 , supra; People v. Rodgers, 184 App. Div. 461 , affd. 226 N. Y. 671 ). | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.