You are here: / / Burdens of Proof Re: Collateral Estoppel Explained

Burdens of Proof Re: Collateral Estoppel Explained

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court, finding that the injunctive relief sought by defendants was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The issues had been decided in a prior appeal of a related but separate action.  The court explained the respective burdens of proof as follows:

“The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue which has necessarily been decided in a prior action and is determinative of the issues disputed in the present action, provided that there was a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now alleged to be controlling” … . “The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel bears the burden of proving that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior proceeding, and is decisive of the present action” … . “The party against whom preclusion is sought bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination” … . Zanani v Schvimmer, 2014 NY Slip Op 03680, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

You might also like
With Regard to the Suit Against the Perpetrator, Perpetrator’s Criminal Conviction Barred Relitigation in the Wrongful Death Case Stemming from a Stabbing Outside Defendant Bar/With Regard to the Suit Against Defendant Bar, Questions of Fact Raised About the Foreseeability of the Attack, the Proximate Cause of the Injury, and the Adequacy of Defendant Bar’s Security Measures
QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER A SEPARATION AGREEMENT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE.
A POLICE CAR RESPONDING AN EMERGENCY CALL SWERVED INTO A TURN LANE TO PASS A CAR AND STRUCK A SKATEBOARDER; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OFFICER ACTED WITH “RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS” (SECOND DEPT).
INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLAIMER BASED UPON THE INSURED’S NONCOOPERATION.
PROPERTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO JOIN THE SLIP AND FALL ACTION WITH A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM THE SLIP AND FALL INJURY PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF THE VALUE OF THE STOLEN ITEMS WAS INSUFFICIENT; GRAND LARCENY 3RD DEGREE CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
THE MOTION TO DISMISS ALLEGATIONS OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE PRIOR TO APRIL 2013 AS TIME-BARRED WAS PROPERLY GRANTED BECAUSE THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY; THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIVE DISSENT ARGUING THAT DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANTS SUPPORTED APPLYING THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE AND THE MATTER SHOULD PROCEED TO DISCOVERY (SECOND DEPT).
REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT FOR FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS NOT MET, PROOF OF MAILING INSUFFICIENT.

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

Expert Testimony Should Not Have Been Precluded Based Upon the Timing of the... Rule Against Successive Summary Judgment Motions Does Not Apply to Issue Rejected...