| Comprehensive Med. Care of N.Y., P.C. v Hausknecht |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08084 [55 AD3d 777] |
| October 21, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Comprehensive Medical Care of New York, P.C.,Respondent, v Aric Hausknecht, Appellant. |
—[*1] Borchert, Genovesi, LaSpina & Landicino, P.C., Whitestone, N.Y. (Anthony J. Genovesi, Jr., ofcounsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals, as limitedby his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated January12, 2007, as denied that branch of his motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss thecomplaint on the ground of collateral estoppel.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendant'smotion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint on the ground of collateralestoppel is granted.
The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action orproceeding an issue that was clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against thatparty (see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096[2002]; Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 349 [1999]; Ryan v NewYork Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500 [1984]). In order to invoke the doctrine, the identical issuemust necessarily have been decided in the prior action or proceeding and be decisive of the presentaction or proceeding, and the party to be precluded from relitigating the issue must have had a full andfair opportunity to contest the prior determination (see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d at 303-304;Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d at 349; D'Arata v New York Cent. Mut.Fire Ins. Co., 76 NY2d 659, 664 [1990]).[*2]
The defendant met his burden of establishing that the issueraised herein was necessarily decided in a prior arbitration and related proceedings (see Martin v Geico Direct Ins., 31 AD3d505, 506 [2006]; Lobel v Allstate Ins. Co., 269 AD2d 502 [2000]), while the plaintifffailed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that it lacked a full and fair opportunity to contest the issuein those proceedings (see Martin v Geico Direct Ins., 31 AD3d at 506; Lobel v AllstateIns. Co., 269 AD2d at 502; cf. Hughes v Gibson Courier Servs. Corp., 218 AD2d 684,685 [1995]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the instant action was notbarred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel (see Lobel v Allstate Ins. Co., 269 AD2d at 502;see also Hibbert v Avwontom, 35 AD3d813, 814 [2006]; Lanzisera v Miller, 289 AD2d 1015 [2001]).
In view of our determination, we need not reach the defendant's remaining contentions. Santucci,J.P., Dillon, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur. [See 14 Misc 3d 1216(A), 2007 NY SlipOp 50041(U).]