You are here: / / Absence of Privity Precluded Application of Collateral Estoppel Doctrine...
,

Absence of Privity Precluded Application of Collateral Estoppel Doctrine 

The Third Department, in reversing Supreme Court, determined the absence of privity precluded the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel.  Northrop owned a gas station which was a designated spill site (gasoline). The Department of Environmental Conservation spent about $125,000 cleaning it up. Northrop sought payment for the clean-up from its insurance carrier (the defendant here). In a prior declaratory judgment proceeding Supreme Court determined the policy did not cover petroleum contamination. Then the state, the plaintiff here, started an action against the defendant insurance company under Navigation Law 190 seeking reimbursement of the clean-up expenses.  Supreme Court dismissed the complaint as barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel (the prior declaratory judgment finding the insurance policy did not cover the clean-up expense).  In reversing, finding collateral estoppel should not have been invoked because Northrop and the state were not in privity, the Third Department wrote:

Plaintiff is the entity that has undertaken the cleanup and now seeks reimbursement for monies expended. Thus, plaintiff has a right of indemnification against Northport to recoup these costs …, establishing an indemnitor-indemnitee relationship. Plaintiff’s right of indemnification,  however, is independent of Northport’s contractual right to have its insurance carrier, defendant, cover these costs under the terms of the liability insurance  policy. Moreover, Navigation Law § 190 authorizes plaintiff to commence a direct action against defendant, and this right is independent of plaintiff’s right of indemnification against Northport. Given that plaintiff’s rights are not conditioned upon and do not derive from Northport’s, the existence of an indemnitor-indemnitee relationship between Northport and plaintiff does not establish privity between these parties.  State of New York v Zurich American Insurance Company, 514916, 3rd Dept, 5-9-13

 

You might also like
Construction Manager Did Not Have the Contractual Authority to Control the Manner In Which Work Was Done and In Fact Did Not Control the Manner In Which Work Was Done—Labor Law 240 (1) and 200 Causes of Action Properly Dismissed
ROBERT F KENNEDY, JR’S NOMINATING PETITION DECLARED INVALID (THIRD DEPT).
NOTICE SENT TO THE OWNER AND LIENHOLDER OF A CAR BY THE TOW SERVICE WHICH WAS STORING THE CAR DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LIEN LAW, THEREFORE THE STORAGE FEES COULD NOT BE COLLECTED BY THE TOW SERVICE (THIRD DEPT).
OWNER OF A SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM INSTALLED ON SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY WAS ENTITLED TO THE STATUTORY EXEMPTION FROM REAL PROPERTY TAX DESPITE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S RESOLUTION OPTING OUT OF THE EXEMPTION; THE RESOLUTION WAS NEVER FILED AS REQUIRED BY THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (THIRD DEPT).
PRECLUSION OF DEFENDANT’S MEDICAL RECORDS AND IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION AND SUMMATION REQUIRED REVERSAL.
Questions of Fact Existed Re: Whether Plaintiffs Were Entitled to Rely on Defendant’s Assurances Dog Was Not Aggressive
SETTING A RETURN DATE LESS THAN 20 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS NOT, UNDER THE FACTS, A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT; THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, HE DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE COUNSEL; COUNSEL DID NOT COMMUNICATE WITH DEFENDANT AND DID NOT PRESENT A DEFENSE; ORDER REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Backhoe Bucket Not “Falling Object” Within Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1) In-Court Stipulation Enforceable Even Though Party Not Represented by Counsel​...