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
PLAINTIFF’S USE OF AN AREA AS A WALKWAY WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED 3RD DEPT.
THE CARRIER WHICH HAD ISSUED A BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICY COVERING THE INSURED’S FLATBED TRUCK WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM AN INJURY INCURRED WHILE UNLOADING A TRACTOR FROM THE FLATBED TRUCK; UNLOADING A TRUCK IS CONSIDERED OPERATION OF THE TRUCK UNDER VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 388 (THIRD DEPT).
Summary Judgment Properly Awarded in Derivative Child-Neglect Proceeding
DOCTOR’S REPORTING PLAINTIFFS’ CHILD’S INJURIES TO CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES IS PROTECTED BY THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY PROVISION IN THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, PLAINTIFFS’ DEFAMATION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
PURSUANT TO THE “HUMANE ALTERNATIVES TO LONG-TERM CONFINEMENT ACT (HALT ACT),” AN INMATE WHO IS FACING SEGREGATED CONFINEMENT HAS A RIGHT TO THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL AT THE DISPOSITIONAL PHASE OF THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK WHEN DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS MADE WAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS INDICTED AND PROSECUTED; THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRED REVERSAL AND REMITTAL; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT BEFORE COUNTY COURT, THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).
COUNTY COURT’S POST-JUDGMENT DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION, AFTER A HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THE SECOND CIRCUIT’S ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, WAS AN INTERMEDIATE ORDER WHICH IS NOT APPEALABLE; MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION TO REFLECT THE RECENT DENIAL OF THE SUPPRESSION MOTION; THE AMENDED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WOULD THEN BE APPEALABLE (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT PROPERLY COMPENSATED FOR WORK-RELATED STRESS.

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​...