§Why CasetextPricing

Douglas L. Leight, et al., Plaintiffs, John H. Masten, Appellant,v.W7879 LLC, et al., Respondents.

Brief

25 Cited authorities

  1. Buechel v. Bain

    97 N.Y.2d 295 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 697 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that two partners at a law firm were in privity with a third partner and had had the full and fair opportunity to litigate their claims when the third partner had litigated them because their interests were "aligned" with that of the third partner, their "right to receive payments were coextensive" with the right of the third partner, and they recognized that adjudication of the third partner's claim would have "consequences for them."

  2. Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 7480 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 372 times
    In Roberts, this Court rejected DHCR's long-standing statutory interpretation and concluded that luxury deregulation was unavailable in any building during receipt of J–51 benefits (13 N.Y.3d at 285–287, 890 N.Y.S.2d 388, 918 N.E.2d 900).

  3. Matter of Rush v. Mordue

    68 N.Y.2d 348 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 676 times
    In Matter of Rush v Mordue (68 NY2d 348, supra) and Matter of Brockway v Monroe (59 NY2d 179), the Court of Appeals recognized that prohibition would lie where the case involves a claim that a prosecution is improper because it is barred by immunity.

  4. Watergate v. Buffalo Sewer

    46 N.Y.2d 52 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 671 times
    Holding that "one who objects to the act of an administrative agency must exhaust available administrative remedies before being permitted to litigate in a court of law"

  5. Jeffreys v. Griffin

    1 N.Y.3d 34 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 217 times
    Holding that under New York law "issue preclusion gives conclusive effect to an administrative agency's quasi-judicial determination when two basic conditions are met: the issue sought to be precluded is identical to a material issue necessarily decided by the administrative agency in a prior proceeding; and there was a full and fair opportunity to contest this issue in the administrative tribunal"

  6. Allied Chem v. Niagara Mohawk

    72 N.Y.2d 271 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 195 times
    Holding Public Service Commission to be quasi-judicial

  7. Halyalkar v. Board of Regents

    72 N.Y.2d 261 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 157 times
    Declining to give an administrative consent order preclusive effect and noting that the doctrine of collateral estoppel "should never be rigidly or mechanically applied"

  8. East West Renovating Co. v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

    16 A.D.3d 166 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 85 times
    In East Renovating, the apartment became subject to rent stabilization when the owner began to receive J–51 tax benefits.

  9. Kahn v. New York City Dep't of Educ.

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1098 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 68 times
    Affirming Appellate Division ruling that probationary teacher did not have a valid claim under Section 1983 because she did not have a property interest in her position

  10. Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Ltd. P'ship

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 8192 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 50 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Auqui v Seven Thirty One LP, 22 N.Y.3d 246 [2013]), the Court of Appeals held that the claims in a personal injury lawsuit could not be barred by an administrative law judge in a workers' compensation decision, as "we find that there is no identity of issue and that collateral estoppel therefore should not be applied."