From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bechtel v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 5, 1984
105 A.D.2d 677 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

November 5, 1984

Appeal from the Court of Claims (Lengyel, J.).


Judgment entered September 28, 1983 affirmed.

Respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

Respondents established that the issues which were determined in claimant's prior action in Federal court against the general contractors, which resulted in a verdict in favor of those contractors, are identical with the issues raised by the present claim. The jury's determination in the prior action in Federal court that the general contractors were not negligent is decisive of claimant's claims against respondents in this matter, since respondents' liability would be wholly derivative from that of the general contractors. Inasmuch as claimant was afforded a full opportunity to litigate all issues alleged in the present claim and has advanced no other theory under which respondents could be held liable, the Court of Claims properly granted their motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim against them (see Schwartz v Public Administrator, 24 N.Y.2d 65, 71; Bronxville Palmer v State of New York, 18 N.Y.2d 560). Gibbons, J.P., O'Connor, Weinstein and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bechtel v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 5, 1984
105 A.D.2d 677 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Bechtel v. State

Case Details

Full title:LESLIE A. BECHTEL, III, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 5, 1984

Citations

105 A.D.2d 677 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Wheeler v. Village of Saugerties

We affirm because defendants, who seek to preclude plaintiff from relitigating whether the sidewalk was…

Perez v. State of New York

s negligence claim]). Here, the preclusive impact of the appellate court's finding that the State's employees…