Ranni's Claim, Matter of
| Decision Date | 08 December 1982 |
| Citation | 444 N.E.2d 1328,458 N.Y.S.2d 910,58 N.Y.2d 715 |
| Parties | , 444 N.E.2d 1328 In the Matter of the Claim of Robert R. RANNI, Respondent. Philip Ross, as Industrial Commissioner, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 84 A.D.2d 858, 444 N.Y.S.2d 725 should be reversed, without costs, and the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reinstated.
Claimant was a hearing officer employed by the State Department of Social Services. He was charged with insubordination, and the matter went to binding arbitration pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement. After a full hearing, the arbitrator found that claimant was guilty of insubordination and approved the penalty of discharge.
Claimant's subsequent application for unemployment benefits was denied because he was found to have been discharged for misconduct. An administrative law judge, stating that he was bound by the arbitrator's factual finding of insubordination, concluded that claimant was discharged for misconduct and confirmed the decision to deny claimant's application.
It is settled that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to arbitration awards and may serve to bar the subsequent relitigation of a single issue or an entire claim (see Matter of American Ins. Co. [Messinger--Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.], 43 N.Y.2d 184, 189-190, 401 N.Y.S.2d 36, 371 N.E.2d 798). "Claim preclusion" refers to the bar against relitigating a claim or cause of action (see id., at p. 189, n. 2, 401 N.Y.S.2d 36, 371 N.E.2d 798). "Issue preclusion" is more limited, barring only the relitigation of a discrete factual or legal issue (see id.).
Claim preclusion is not applicable here. The initial arbitration was concerned with the propriety of claimant's dismissal whereas the instant controversy focused on claimant's entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits. The ultimate issues are different, and the latter proceeding was therefore not barred by the former.
Issue preclusion is pertinent, however. In the present controversy, the administrative law judge was specifically concerned with determining whether claimant was guilty of misconduct and, hence, disqualified for benefits (see Labor Law, § 593, subd. 3). In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Belco Petroleum Corp. v. AIG Oil Rig, Inc.
...are awarded [Belco]." It being firmly established that res judicata is applicable to arbitration awards (Matter of Ranni, 58 N.Y.2d 715, 717, 458 N.Y.S.2d 910, 444 N.E.2d 1328), preclusion of Belco's claim for punitive damages by the award would be a foregone conclusion were it not also fir......
-
Sewell v. New York City Transit Authority
...543 N.Y.S.2d 86, 87 (1st Dep't), aff'd, 74 N.Y.2d 879, 547 N.Y.S.2d 841, 547 N.E.2d 96 (1989); but see Matter of Ranni's Claim, 58 N.Y.2d 715, 458 N.Y.S.2d 910, 444 N.E.2d 1328 (1982) (applying collateral estoppel to bar relitigation of issues raised in arbitration proceeding in subsequent ......
-
Ammcon, Inc. v. Kemp
...and may serve to bar the subsequent relitigation of a single issue or an entire claim." Matter of Ranni's Claim, 58 N.Y.2d 715, 717, 458 N.Y.S.2d 910, 910-11, 444 N.E.2d 1328, 1329-30 (1982). Res judicata or claim preclusion estops a party from relitigating a claim or cause of action decide......
-
Faillace v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
...specifically to them ..." (Engel v. Calgon Corp., 114 A.D.2d 108, 110, 498 N.Y.S.2d 877 (1986); and, see Matter of Ranni (Ross), 58 N.Y.2d 715, 458 N.Y.S.2d 910, 444 N.E.2d 1328 (1982)). As mentioned supra, the Appeal Board ruled that the plaintiff's termination was not voluntary, as a resu......