IN RE: Dale S. SOLOMON (2024)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Joy M. Watson, J.), dated June 12, 2023.  The order denied the mother's objections, in effect, to an order of the same court (Lisa M. Williams, S.M.) dated March 24, 2023, which, upon an order of the same court also dated March 24, 2023, after a hearing, granting the father's motion to dismiss the mother's petition, inter alia, for an award of child support arrears, dismissed the mother's petition.

ORDERED that the order dated June 12, 2023, is affirmed, with costs.

The parties were married in 1984 and have two children born in 1990 and 1995.  In 2008, the parties were divorced by a judgment which incorporated, but did not merge, a stipulation of settlement.  After a hearing in 2018, during which the parties’ numerous postjudgment motions were addressed, in an order dated March 26, 2018, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the mother's motion for a money judgment against the father for alleged child support arrears and reimbursement of certain add-on expenses.  The mother did not appeal from that order.

In 2022, the mother filed the instant petition to recover the same child support arrears and add-on expenses.  The father moved to dismiss the mother's petition based upon the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata.  In an order dated March 24, 2023, after a hearing, the Support Magistrate granted the father's motion, and in an order also dated March 24, 2023, the Support Magistrate dismissed the mother's petition.  The mother filed objections, and in an order dated June 12, 2023, the Family Court denied the mother's objections.  The mother appeals from the June 12, 2023 order.

“ ‘Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding’ ” (Matter of Chodkowski v. County of Nassau, 180 A.D.3d 778, 780, 118 N.Y.S.3d 694, quoting Abraham v. Hermitage Ins. Co., 47 A.D.3d 855, 855, 851 N.Y.S.2d 608).  “The doctrine of collateral estoppel, a narrower species of res judicata, precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action ․ and decided against that party or those in privity, whether or not the tribunals or 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).

Contrary to the mother's contentions, the Family Court properly determined that the mother was precluded from relitigating the amount of child support arrears and add-on expenses, if any, allegedly owed by the father, as she failed to prove her entitlement to such relief in the prior proceeding (see O'Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353, 355, 445 N.Y.S.2d 687, 429 N.E.2d 1158;  Matter of Singer v. Windfield, 125 A.D.3d 666, 668, 3 N.Y.S.3d 381;  Modica v. Zergebel, 160 A.D.2d 689, 690, 555 N.Y.S.2d 594;  see also Matter of Gowda v. Reddy, 105 A.D.3d 957, 958, 963 N.Y.S.2d 353).

Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the mother's objections, in effect, to the order of the Support Magistrate which dismissed the mother's petition.

LASALLE, P.J., IANNACCI, FORD and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.