You are here: / / THE DOCTRINES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA APPLY TO THE ARBITRATOR’S...
, , ,

THE DOCTRINES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA APPLY TO THE ARBITRATOR’S DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER DID NOT ABUSE A MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES RECIPIENT, THE CONTRARY SUBSEQUENT DETERMINATION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the administrative law judge (ALJ), determined that the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata applied to the original arbitrator’s finding that petitioner, a security assistant employed by the Office of Mental Health (OMH), did not abuse a mental health service recipient. The arbitrator found that the service recipient was the aggressor. The proceedings before the ALJ, which found that petitioner had abused the service recipient, were annulled:

The fundamental point here is that the arbitrator reviewed the underlying event and determined that the service recipient fell to the floor and was the sole aggressor. As such, we conclude that respondent was precluded under principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel from relitigating the question of whether petitioner physically abused the service recipient by pushing her to the floor. It follows that his petition to annul respondent’s determination should be granted and the determination annulled. The matter must be remitted to respondent for amendment of the findings to state that the report is unsubstantiated and for compliance with the requirements of Social Services Law § 494. Matter of Anonymous v New York State Justice Ctr. for the Protection of People With Special Needs, 2019 NY Slip Op 05364, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

You might also like
ACTION SEEKING RESCISSION OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT RESTRICTING DEVELOPMENT ON UPSTATE LAND WITHIN THE NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED PROPERLY DISMISSED; UNIQUE LAW RE: MODIFICATION OR EXTINGUISHMENT OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT EXPLAINED.
No Question of Fact About Whether Defendant Was Strictly Liable for Actions of Dog—Bicyclist Injured When Dog Ran Into Path of Bicycle
Suppression Hearing Should Have Been Held to Determine Whether Property Seized by Use of Excessive Force (Taser)
Rules of Evidence Properly Relaxed to Allow Hearsay In Proceeding to Modify Guardian’s Power to Control the Social Environment of the Incapacitated Person
NONWORKING CLAIMANT SUBJECT TO THE 75% CAP ON WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLED TO NO LESS THAN 25% LOSS OF WAGE- EARNING CAPACITY FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE DURATION OF BENEFITS; HERE A 15% LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY UPHELD.
RESPONDENT JUVENILE WAS DENIED HER RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).
Employer Was Not Prejudiced by Claimant’s Failure to Give Timely Notice of the Accident, Claim Allowed
CLAIMANT ACTOR WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE SCHOOL OF VISUAL ARTS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (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

THE CONSTRUCTION OF 27 MILES OF SNOWMOBILE TRAILS IN THE ADIRONDACK PARK WOULD... PLAINTIFF’S NEW COUNSEL FILED A SECOND COMPLAINT ARISING OUT OF THE SAME...