Opinion
December 29, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that the "party invoking the doctrine of collateral estoppel must show that the critical issues in the instant action [were] necessarily decided in the prior action and that the party against whom estoppel is sought has been afforded a full and fair opportunity to contest that issue" ( Weinstein Enters. v Morini, 217 A.D.2d 615; see also, Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494, 500-501; New York Site Dev. Corp. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 217 A.D.2d 699; Weber v Kessler, 177 A.D.2d 843). Here, a review of the record demonstrates that the defendants have failed to discharge their burden in this respect. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of collateral estoppel. Thompson, J.P., Altman, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.