Defendants, seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel, failed to demonstrate that the decisive issue had necessarily been decided in the prior subrogation action against plaintiffs, that plaintiffs were in privity with the insurance company, and that plaintiffs, as the party against whom the prior determination was to be asserted, had a "full and fair opportunity" to contest the prior determination (see Buechel v. Bain,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
TERMAN v. GONTA
26 A.D.3d 160 (2006)
807 N.Y.S.2d 566
PHILIP TERMAN et al., Respondents, v. MINODORA GONTA et al., Appellants.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
February 2, 2006.
February 2, 2006.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
