Coffey v. CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P.

• Decision Date: 20 May 2014
• Citation: 986 N.Y.S.2d 448,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 03640,117 A.D.3d 585
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: Kelly COFFEY, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. CRP/EXTELL PARCEL I, L.P., et al., Defendants–Appellants, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Defendant.

117 A.D.3d 585

986 N.Y.S.2d 448

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 03640

Kelly COFFEY, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v. CRP/EXTELL PARCEL I, L.P., et al., Defendants–Appellants,Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

May 20, 2014.

Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Armonk (Jason S. Cyrulnik of counsel), for appellants.

Held & Hines, LLP, New York (James K. Hargrove of counsel), for respondent.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., ACOSTA, ANDRIAS, SAXE, CLARK, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered April 2, 2013, inter alia, declaring the option agreement rescinded, and ordering defendants to release and return the escrowed down payments, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court correctly found that defendants are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from relitigating the issues raised here, since those issues were fully and fairly litigated in the administrative proceeding that culminated in the hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding/reformation action, which affirmed a determination by the Office of the Attorney General allowing certain purchasers similarly situated to plaintiff to rescind their option agreements ( see Matter of CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P. v. Cuomo, 101 A.D.3d 473, 957 N.Y.S.2d 293 [1st Dept.2012] ).