Simpson v. Alter
| Decision Date | 09 November 2010 |
| Citation | 911 N.Y.S.2d 405,78 A.D.3d 813 |
| Parties | ShawnDya L. SIMPSON, respondent, v. Bernard M. ALTER, et al., appellants, et al., defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
78 A.D.3d 813
ShawnDya L. SIMPSON, respondent,
v.
Bernard M. ALTER, et al., appellants, et al., defendant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov. 9, 2010.
Alter & Barbaro, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Stephen V. Barbaro and Bernard M. Alter pro se of counsel), appellant pro se.
Dilimetin & Dilimetin, P.C., Manhasset, N.Y. (Laura M. Dilimetin of counsel), for respondent.
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, RANDALL T. ENG, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants Bernard M. Alter and Alter & Barbaro appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), entered March 8, 2010, as denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) and (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants' motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) based upon the doctrine of collateral estoppel. 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 raised in the present action, provided that there was a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now alleged to be controlling ( see Tydings v. Greenfield, Stein & Senior, LLP, 11 N.Y.3d 195, 199, 868 N.Y.S.2d 563, 897 N.E.2d 1044; Buechel v. Bain, 97 N.Y.2d 295, 303-304, 740 N.Y.S.2d 252, 766 N.E.2d 914, cert. denied sub nom. Bain v. Buechel, 535 U.S. 1096, 122 S.Ct. 2293, 152 L.Ed.2d 1051; Mahler v. Campagna, 60 A.D.3d 1009, 1011, 876 N.Y.S.2d 143). Preclusive effect may only be given to issues that were "actually litigated, squarely addressed and specifically 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) breached his duty to the plaintiff by divulging confidential information which she allegedly imparted to him when he was her attorney in 2003 was actually litigated, squarely addressed, and specifically decided in a prior 2007 proceeding pursuant to Election...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- El-Dehdan v. El-Dehdan
-
Stewart Title Ins. Co. v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, Formerly Known Y., for the Certificateholders Cwalt, Inc.
...or mechanically applied since it is, at its core, an equitable doctrine reflecting general concepts of fairness" ( Simpson v. Alter, 78 A.D.3d 813, 814, 911 N.Y.S.2d 405 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). By May 2013, BoNY's 2009 foreclosure action could not proceed as a foreclosure acti......
-
Crystal Clear Dev., LLC v. Devon Architects of N.Y., P.C.
...causes of action are the same” ( Ryan v. New York Tel. Co., 62 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, 81......
-
DeStaso v. Condon Resnick, LLP
...contained in the complaint ( see Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633, 636, 389 N.Y.S.2d 314, 357 N.E.2d 970; Simpson v. Alter, 78 A.D.3d 813, 815, 911 N.Y.S.2d 405; Kempf v. Magida, 37 A.D.3d 763, 764, 832 N.Y.S.2d 47; Quesada v. Global Land, Inc., 35 A.D.3d 575, 576, 826 N.Y.S.2d ......