issue preclusion doctrine in New York

1985More specifically, for the doctrine of issue preclusion to apply, it is required: ‘that the issue as to which preclusion is sought be identical with the issue decided in the prior proceeding, that the issue have been necessarily decided in the prior proceeding, and that the litigant who will be held precluded in the present proceeding have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding (Gilberg v Barbieri, 53 NY2d 285, 291 ; Schwartz v Public Administrator of County of Bronx, 24 NY2d 65, 71 ; see B.R.

1983John’s L Rev 165, 166-167; Restatement, Judgments 2d, §§27, 29). 3 More specifically, for the doctrine of issue preclusion to apply, it is required: “that the issue as to which preclusion is sought be identical with the issue decided in the prior proceeding, that the issue have been necessarily decided in the prior proceeding, and that the litigant who will be held precluded in the present proceeding have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding (Gilberg v Barbieri, 53 NY2d 285, 291 ; Schwartz v Public Administrator of County of Bronx, 24 NY2d 65, 71 ; see

1985More specifically, for the doctrine of issue preclusion to apply, it is required: ‘that the issue as to which preclusion is sought be identical with the issue decided in the prior proceeding, that the issue have been necessarily decided in the prior proceeding, and that the litigant who will be held precluded in the present proceeding have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding (Gilberg v Barbieri, 53 NY2d 285, 291 ; Schwartz v Public Administrator of County of Bronx, 24 NY2d 65, 71 ; see B.R.

1983John’s L Rev 165, 166-167; Restatement, Judgments 2d, §§27, 29). 3 More specifically, for the doctrine of issue preclusion to apply, it is required: “that the issue as to which preclusion is sought be identical with the issue decided in the prior proceeding, that the issue have been necessarily decided in the prior proceeding, and that the litigant who will be held precluded in the present proceeding have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding (Gilberg v Barbieri, 53 NY2d 285, 291 ; Schwartz v Public Administrator of County of Bronx, 24 NY2d 65, 71 ; see

1986We reject this argument, for the Board is bound by the doctrine of issue preclusion, which bars the relitigation of discrete factual issues (Matter of Ranni [Ross], 58 NY2d 715, 717 ).

1984We reject this argument, for the Board is bound by the doctrine of issue preclusion, which bars the relitigation of discrete factual issues (Matter ofRanni [Ross], 58 NY2d 715, 717 ).

2004The motion court realistically applied the flexible doctrine of issue preclusion (see Jeffreys v Griffin, 1 NY3d 34, 40 [2003]; Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]) in barring all of plaintiffs’ claims, based on the arbitrators’ finding that plaintiff Feinberg could not have reasonably relied on the financial statements and other financial documents produced by defendants.

1993It is designed to conserve time and judicial resources by barring a party from relitigating issues decided in a prior action, provided that he or she had a full and fair opportunity to contest the determination said to be controlling (see, Schwartz v Public Adm’r of County of Bronx, 24 NY2d 65 ). 5 "It serves an important role in civil cases, where it originated and where society’s primary concern is to provide a means of peaceful, swift and impartial resolution of private disputes * * * It is less relevant in criminal cases where the pre-eminent concern is to reach a correct result and where

1989The doctrine of issue preclusion provides that "as to the parties in a litigation and those in privity with them, a judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the issues of fact and questions of law necessarily decided therein in any subsequent action” (Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 485 , citing Matter of Shea, 309 NY 605, 616 ).

1989The doctrine of issue preclusion provides that "as to the parties in a litigation and those in privity with them, a judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the issues of fact and questions of law necessarily decided therein in any subsequent action” (Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 485 , citing Matter of Shea, 309 NY 605, 616 ).

1988Having found no substantive change in Bramson’s method of operation, the Board was justified in reaching a result consistent with prior results based upon essentially similar fact patterns, irrespective of whether all the elements of collateral estoppel had been established (see, Matter of Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts], 66 NY2d 516 ; see also, Matter of Schwartz [Creative Tutoring—Roberts], 91 AD2d 778, 779 ).

1985DeWitt, Inc. v Hall, 19 NY2d 141 ).

1984“Inconsistent factual determinations in separate trials of comparable cases between different parties have long been tolerated” (Matter of Moore [Levine], 51 AD2d 614 , citing People ex rel.

1984Thus, this court must inquire into the effect of the prior decision. t| It is also argued that the Board cannot be bound by the decision in the co-worker’s case, which was made by an administrative law judge, since the Board has the inherent authority to reopen a decision of an administrative law judge (see Matter of Smalt [Ross], 82 AD2d 958 ).

1984Quite aside from the doctrine of issue preclusion, barring the commencement of a second separate action arising out of the same continuum of facts (e.g., Hyman v Hillelson, 55 NY2d 624 ; O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357-358 ; Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185, 192-193 ; Pappalardo v Good Samaritan Hosp., 97 AD2d 836 ), since we have held that the defendant was acting in a judicial capacity, he is absolutely immune from suit (see, e.g., Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349 ; Levy v State of New York, 58 NY2d 733 ; cf. Park Knoll Assoc. v Schmidt, 59 NY2d 205, 209 ).

1984Quite aside from the doctrine of issue preclusion, barring the commencement of a second separate action arising out of the same continuum of facts (e.g., Hyman v Hillelson, 55 NY2d 624 ; O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357-358 ; Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185, 192-193 ; Pappalardo v Good Samaritan Hosp., 97 AD2d 836 ), since we have held that the defendant was acting in a judicial capacity, he is absolutely immune from suit (see, e.g., Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349 ; Levy v State of New York, 58 NY2d 733 ; cf. Park Knoll Assoc. v Schmidt, 59 NY2d 205, 209 ).

1984Quite aside from the doctrine of issue preclusion, barring the commencement of a second separate action arising out of the same continuum of facts (e.g., Hyman v Hillelson, 55 NY2d 624 ; O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357-358 ; Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185, 192-193 ; Pappalardo v Good Samaritan Hosp., 97 AD2d 836 ), since we have held that the defendant was acting in a judicial capacity, he is absolutely immune from suit (see, e.g., Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349 ; Levy v State of New York, 58 NY2d 733 ; cf. Park Knoll Assoc. v Schmidt, 59 NY2d 205, 209 ).

1984Quite aside from the doctrine of issue preclusion, barring the commencement of a second separate action arising out of the same continuum of facts (e.g., Hyman v Hillelson, 55 NY2d 624 ; O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357-358 ; Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185, 192-193 ; Pappalardo v Good Samaritan Hosp., 97 AD2d 836 ), since we have held that the defendant was acting in a judicial capacity, he is absolutely immune from suit (see, e.g., Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349 ; Levy v State of New York, 58 NY2d 733 ; cf. Park Knoll Assoc. v Schmidt, 59 NY2d 205, 209 ).

1984Quite aside from the doctrine of issue preclusion, barring the commencement of a second separate action arising out of the same continuum of facts (e.g., Hyman v Hillelson, 55 NY2d 624 ; O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357-358 ; Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185, 192-193 ; Pappalardo v Good Samaritan Hosp., 97 AD2d 836 ), since we have held that the defendant was acting in a judicial capacity, he is absolutely immune from suit (see, e.g., Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349 ; Levy v State of New York, 58 NY2d 733 ; cf. Park Knoll Assoc. v Schmidt, 59 NY2d 205, 209 ).

1984Quite aside from the doctrine of issue preclusion, barring the commencement of a second separate action arising out of the same continuum of facts (e.g., Hyman v Hillelson, 55 NY2d 624 ; O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357-358 ; Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185, 192-193 ; Pappalardo v Good Samaritan Hosp., 97 AD2d 836 ), since we have held that the defendant was acting in a judicial capacity, he is absolutely immune from suit (see, e.g., Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349 ; Levy v State of New York, 58 NY2d 733 ; cf. Park Knoll Assoc. v Schmidt, 59 NY2d 205, 209 ).

1984Quite aside from the doctrine of issue preclusion, barring the commencement of a second separate action arising out of the same continuum of facts (e.g., Hyman v Hillelson, 55 NY2d 624 ; O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357-358 ; Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185, 192-193 ; Pappalardo v Good Samaritan Hosp., 97 AD2d 836 ), since we have held that the defendant was acting in a judicial capacity, he is absolutely immune from suit (see, e.g., Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349 ; Levy v State of New York, 58 NY2d 733 ; cf. Park Knoll Assoc. v Schmidt, 59 NY2d 205, 209 ).

1983Given the policies behind the doctrine of issue preclusion, this is certainly not a desirable result (see Vincent v Thompson, supra, p 1045; Hart v American Airlines, 61 Misc 2d 41 ).

1983It is thus apparent that the size of the claim in Food Pageant (supra) is not such as to lead one to conclude that Con Ed did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of gross negligence in that case, nor is it a factor upon which to base an argument that issue preclusion in this case would be otherwise unfair.

1981Here the decisive issues before the arbitrator and the Administrative Law Judge were dissimilar and the fact-finding process before an arbitrator will not preclude the Administrative Law Judge from conducting a hearing upon the merits (Matter of Morgen [CBS, Inc. — Ross], 54 AD2d 523 ).