Opinion
December 29, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendant (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). In particular, the court correctly determined that the defendant was collaterally estopped from disputing its obligation to pay the plaintiff terminal leave benefits since, as the defendant concedes on appeal, the issue of the plaintiff's entitlement to these benefits was determined in an earlier action in which the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue (see, D'Arata v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 N.Y.2d 659; Matter of City of Yonkers v Yonkers Racing Corp., 171 A.D.2d 663; Sucher v Kutscher's Country Club, 113 A.D.2d 928). Futhermore, we reject the defendant's contention that the instant case presents "unmixed questions of law" to which estoppel principles are inapplicable (see, United States v Moser, 266 U.S. 236).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either improperly raised on appeal or without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.