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.
PATCO HOMES, INC., respondent, v. Maureen BOYLE, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the parties' rights with respect to a certain easement, the defendants Maureen Boyle and Stephen T. Boyle appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated March 5, 1998, as granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment (a) on its first and second causes of action, and (b) dismissing their third counterclaim.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed, with costs.
Contrary to the appellants' contentions, the Supreme Court correctly rejected their argument regarding the doctrine of collateral estoppel. That doctrine rests upon the sound premise that once a party has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate a particular issue, that party may not relitigate that same issue (see, Schwartz v. Public Administrator of County of Bronx, 24 N.Y.2d 65, 69, 298 N.Y.S.2d 955, 246 N.E.2d 725). However, before the doctrine can be invoked to prevent the relitigation of an issue, it must be shown that the precise issue was in fact litigated in the earlier action and would be decisive in the subsequent action (see, David v. Biondo, 92 N.Y.2d 318, 680 N.Y.S.2d 450, 703 N.E.2d 261; Alvarez v. Brown, 256 A.D.2d 530, 682 N.Y.S.2d 421; Mosher v. Baines, 254 A.D.2d 467, 679 N.Y.S.2d 404 ). The prior action in which the plaintiff obtained a judicial declaration that an easement on its property had been extinguished by abandonment did not necessarily determine any issues in controversy in the instant case, which concerns a physically proximate but distinct easement across the appellants' property. Inasmuch as the prior action concerned a different issue from that in controversy in the instant action, collateral estoppel is inapposite and poses no bar to the plaintiff's evidence demonstrating that the easement in controversy herein was never abandoned.
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: April 12, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)