§Why CasetextPricing

Maria Auqui,, et al., Respondents,v.Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership, et al., Appellants.

Brief

27 Cited authorities

  1. Pommells v. Perez

    4 N.Y.3d 566 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 2,059 times
    Holding that a plaintiff's claim survived summary judgment when her doctor stated that she had suffered severe and permanent injuries and that opinion was supported by measurements of loss of range of motion and an MRI revealing herniated discs

  2. Ryan v. New York Tel. Co.

    62 N.Y.2d 494 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 1,612 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for an issue to be deemed identical “it must be the point actually to be determined in the second action or proceeding such that a different judgment in the second would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the first.”

  3. Kaufman v. Lilly Co.

    65 N.Y.2d 449 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 997 times
    Recognizing that the doctrine is "based upon the general notion that it is not fair to permit a party to relitigate an issue that has already been decided against it"

  4. D'Arata v. N Y Cent. Fire Ins. Co.

    76 N.Y.2d 659 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 612 times
    Holding that collateral estoppel is grounded on concepts of fairness and should not be rigidly or mechanically applied

  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. Liss v. Trans Auto Systems, Inc.

    68 N.Y.2d 15 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 218 times
    In Liss v. Trans Auto Systems, Inc., 68 N.Y.2d 15, 20-21, 505 N.Y.S.2d 831, 496 N.E.2d 851 (1986), the New York Court of Appeals held that the Board has primary jurisdiction regarding the availability of Workers' Compensation and plaintiff must litigate this issue before the Board.

  7. O'Rourke v. Long

    41 N.Y.2d 219 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 247 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting principle in case of underage employee

  8. 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"

  9. Botwinick v. Ogden

    59 N.Y.2d 909 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 111 times

    Argued May 4, 1983 Decided June 16, 1983 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, THOMAS V. SINCLAIR, JR., J. Marshal S. Endick and Stuart E. Kahan for appellants. Emilio Nunez, Harry H. Lipsig and Pamela Anagnos Liapakis for respondents. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the case remitted to Supreme Court with direction to defer disposition of appellants' motion to dismiss the complaint until final

  10. Altegra Credit Co. v. Tin Chu

    29 A.D.3d 718 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 42 times

    2004-04326. May 16, 2006. In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), dated March 25, 2004, which granted the motion of the intervenor-respondent, Wing Kwan Lee Gee, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Tartaglia Wise Wiederkehr, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Jonathan J. Lanman, Bradley D. Wank, and Lee S. Wiederkehr of counsel), for appellant. Robert J. Smith, New York