Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Neal MILANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered September 24, 2007, which, in an action by a former cab driver alleging negligence by defendants, a drug testing company and its employee, in administering a drug test that found cocaine in plaintiff's urine and resulted in the revocation of plaintiff's taxicab operator's license, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of collateral estoppel, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff raises the same issues in this action that he unsuccessfully raised and were necessarily decided in the prior fitness hearing before the Taxi and Limousine Commission (Matter of Milano v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn., 305 A.D.2d 326, 761 N.Y.S.2d 29 [2003], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 707, 801 N.Y.S.2d 801, 835 N.E.2d 661 [2005] ), namely, that defendants allowed his urine specimen to become contaminated and failed to properly document the chain of custody (see Ryan v. New York Tel. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494, 499, 500-502, 478 N.Y.S.2d 823, 467 N.E.2d 487 [1984] ). We reject plaintiff's argument that collateral estoppel should not be applied here because TLC's determination was based on an unrebutted presumption of the test's validity (see Matter of Wai Lun Fung v. Daus, 45 A.D.3d 392, 393, 846 N.Y.S.2d 104 [2007]; see also Matter of Allen v. Police Dept. of City of N.Y., 240 A.D.2d 229, 658 N.Y.S.2d 610 [1997] ) that would not be applied by a court of law. It suffices that plaintiff was given a full and fair opportunity at the fitness hearing to show that the test was invalid because he had dropped the cup into the toilet bowl before giving the sample. We also reject plaintiff's argument that considerations of fairness weigh against application of collateral estoppel because he was “forced” to litigate in the first instance in an administrative tribunal. Nor does it avail plaintiff to argue that he did not have an opportunity to conduct discovery when he never requested discovery.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 20, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)