From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hauss v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 29, 1995
222 A.D.2d 653 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

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.


Summaries of

Hauss v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 29, 1995
222 A.D.2d 653 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Hauss v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR HAUSS, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 29, 1995

Citations

222 A.D.2d 653 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
635 N.Y.S.2d 681

Citing Cases

H.R. Neumann Assoc. v. New Eagle, Inc.

"[C]ollateral estoppel does not apply to a prior determination involving solely a question of law . . . The…