Motors Insurance Corp. v. Mautone
| Decision Date | 26 June 2007 |
| Docket Number | 2006-09345. |
| Citation | 839 N.Y.S.2d 507,2007 NY Slip Op 05704,41 A.D.3d 800 |
| Parties | MOTORS INSURANCE CORP., Appellant, v. NEIL MAUTONE et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting those branches of the defendants' cross motion which were for leave to amend their answer to raise collateral estoppel as an affirmative defense and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and substituting therefor a provision denying those branches of the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff contends that a determination made in a prior inter-company arbitration proceeding does not bar it from seeking recovery for property damage to its insured's vehicle allegedly caused by the defendants' negligence. We agree. Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, a party is precluded "from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity, whether or not tribunals or causes of action are the same" (Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500 [1984]; see Altegra Credit Co. v Tin Chu, 29 AD3d 718 [2006]; Pouncy v Dudley, 27 AD3d 633 [2006]). However, preclusive effect will only be given where the particular issue was "actually litigated, squarely addressed and specifically decided" (Ross v Medical Liab. Mut. Ins. Co., 75 NY2d 825, 826 [1990]; see North Shore-Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc. v Aetna US Healthcare, Inc., 27 AD3d 439 [2006]; Singleton Mgt. v Compere, 243 AD2d 213 [1998]). Here, the inter-company arbitration proceeding between the plaintiff and the defendants' insurance carrier resulted in a determination that the defendants' carrier was only required to provide excess coverage for the property damage to the subject vehicle. However, the arbitration panel's decision was predicated upon the language of the applicable insurance policies, and no finding was made as to whether the accident which damaged the vehicle was caused by the defendants' alleged negligence. Accordingly, the arbitration panel's decision cannot be given preclusive effect in this action (see McDonald v Rose, 37 AD3d 781 [2007]; Kleinman v...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crystal Clear Dev., LLC v. Devon Architects of N.Y., P.C.
...N.Y.2d 494, 500, 478 N.Y.S.2d 823, 467 N.E.2d 487;see Simpson v. Alter, 78 A.D.3d 813, 814, 911 N.Y.S.2d 405;Motors Ins. Corp. v. Mautone, 41 A.D.3d 800, 800–801, 839 N.Y.S.2d 507;Altegra Credit Co. v. Tin Chu, 29 A.D.3d 718, 816 N.Y.S.2d 140). Preclusive effect, however, will only be given......
-
Bd. of Managers of White Sands Condo. v. Cooper
...647 [1999]; Kaufman v. Eli Lilly & Co., 65 N.Y.2d 449, 456–457, 492 N.Y.S.2d 584, 482 N.E.2d 63 [1985]; Motors Ins. Corp. v. Mautone, 41 A.D.3d 800, 801, 839 N.Y.S.2d 507 [2007] ). In Case Number 1, although they asserted numerous affirmative defenses in their answer to the complaint, defen......
-
Simpson v. Alter
...decided" ( Ross v. Medical Liab. Mut. Ins. Co., 75 N.Y.2d 825, 552 N.Y.S.2d 559, 551 N.E.2d 1237; see Motors Ins. Corp. v. Mautone, 41 A.D.3d 800, 801, 839 N.Y.S.2d 507). Here, the appellants failed to establish that the issue of whether the appellant Bernard M. Alter (hereinafter Alter) br......
-
In re New Creek Bluebelt, Phase 4. City of N.Y.
..." in the first foreclosure action and, accordingly, the doctrine of collateral estoppel is inapplicable ( Motors Ins. Corp. v. Mautone, 41 A.D.3d 800, 801, 839 N.Y.S.2d 507, quoting Ross v. Medical Liab. Mut. Ins. Co., 75 N.Y.2d 825, 826, 552 N.Y.S.2d 559, 551 N.E.2d 1237). Additionally, th......