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.
Jackie D. SCIPIO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. WAL–MART STORES EAST, L.P. and Anthony Desantis, Defendants–Respondents.
Memorandum: In this personal injury action, plaintiff appeals from an order granting the motion of defendants for leave to amend the answer to assert the affirmative defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on those doctrines. We reject plaintiff's contention that those doctrines do not apply to the facts before us. We note at the outset that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel “are applicable to give conclusive effect to the quasi-judicial determinations of administrative agencies” (Ryan v. New York Tel. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494, 499, 478 N.Y.S.2d 823, 467 N.E.2d 487; see Yoonessi v. State of New York, 289 A.D.2d 998, 1000, 735 N.Y.S.2d 900, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 609, 746 N.Y.S.2d 693, 774 N.E.2d 758, cert denied 537 U.S. 1047, 123 S.Ct. 602, 154 L.Ed.2d 521). Furthermore, contrary to plaintiff's contention, defendants “ ‘demonstrate[d] the identicality and decisiveness of the issue’ “ decided in the prior administrative proceeding, and plaintiff failed to establish “ ‘the absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in [the] prior ․ proceeding’ “ (Parker v. Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 N.Y.2d 343, 349, 690 N.Y.S.2d 478, 712 N.E.2d 647, quoting Ryan, 62 N.Y.2d at 501, 478 N.Y.S.2d 823, 467 N.E.2d 487).
Contrary to plaintiff's further contention, Supreme Court did not abuse or improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that part of defendants' motion for leave to amend the answer. “Leave to amend the pleadings ‘shall be freely given’ absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay” (McCaskey, Davies & Assoc. v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 59 N.Y.2d 755, 757, 463 N.Y.S.2d 434, 450 N.E.2d 240, quoting CPLR 3025[b]; see Bryndle v. Safety–Kleen Sys., Inc., 66 A.D.3d 1396, 1396, 885 N.Y.S.2d 808) and, here, plaintiff failed to establish either prejudice or surprise resulting from the delay.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 09, 2012
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)