From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Terman v. Gonta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 2, 2006
26 A.D.3d 160 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

7725.

February 2, 2006.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered July 27, 2004, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Jacobson Schwartz, Rockville Centre (Henry J. Cernitz of counsel), for Minodora Gonta, Mariana Gheorghita, Mariana Preda and Mardo Nail Salon, appellants.

Mauro Goldberg Lilling LLP, Great Neck (Anthony F. DeStefano of counsel), for Walter Samuels, Inc. and Fortusa Realty Corp., appellants.

Shearer Essner, LLP, New York (Howard Essner of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ., concur.


Defendants, seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel, failed to demonstrate that the decisive issue had necessarily been decided in the prior subrogation action against plaintiffs, that plaintiffs were in privity with the insurance company, and that plaintiffs, as the party against whom the prior determination was to be asserted, had a "full and fair opportunity" to contest the prior determination ( see Buechel v. Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304, cert denied 535 US 1096; Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v. Lopez, 46 NY2d 481). Plaintiffs had no opportunity to litigate the property damage subrogation action because they lacked control over, or a financial interest in, that action ( see e.g., Anderson v. Snyder Tank Corp., 44 AD2d 761, 762).


Summaries of

Terman v. Gonta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 2, 2006
26 A.D.3d 160 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Terman v. Gonta

Case Details

Full title:PHILIP TERMAN et al., Respondents, v. MINODORA GONTA et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 2, 2006

Citations

26 A.D.3d 160 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 682
807 N.Y.S.2d 566

Citing Cases

Ins. of State of Pennsylvania v. Kaouache

In opposition, AIG asserts that collateral estoppel does not apply since Borhane was not a party to the…