Opinion
2014-05-20
Kelly COFFEY, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. CRP/EXTELL PARCEL I, L.P., et al., Defendants–Appellants, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Defendant.
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Armonk (Jason S. Cyrulnik of counsel), for appellants. Held & Hines, LLP, New York (James K. Hargrove of counsel), for respondent.
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Armonk (Jason S. Cyrulnik of counsel), for appellants. Held & Hines, LLP, New York (James K. Hargrove of counsel), for respondent.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., ACOSTA, ANDRIAS, SAXE, CLARK, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered April 2, 2013, inter alia, declaring the option agreement rescinded, and ordering defendants to release and return the escrowed down payments, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The court correctly found that defendants are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from relitigating the issues raised here, since those issues were fully and fairly litigated in the administrative proceeding that culminated in the hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding/reformation action, which affirmed a determination by the Office of the Attorney General allowing certain purchasers similarly situated to plaintiff to rescind their option agreements ( see Matter of CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P. v. Cuomo, 101 A.D.3d 473, 957 N.Y.S.2d 293 [1st Dept.2012] ).