From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murphy v. Sachem Cent. Sch. Dist. at Holbrook

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 21, 1989
147 A.D.2d 623 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

February 21, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof which granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for partial summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's third cause of action and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the defendants' contention that the plaintiff is collaterally estopped from litigating his fourth cause of action sounding in breach of contract and tort (see, Allied Chem. v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 72 N.Y.2d 271, 276; Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494; Schwartz v Public Adm'r of County of Bronx, 24 N.Y.2d 65, 71). The factual basis of the claim was necessarily determined by the prior administrative proceedings before the Unemployment Insurance Administrative Law Judge, whose determination was affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, as well as before the arbitrator appointed to hear the grievance brought by the plaintiff's union on his behalf (Ryan v New York Tel. Co., supra; Matter of Newsday, Inc. v Ross, 80 A.D.2d 1). The plaintiff has not discharged his burden of showing either that he was not afforded a full and fair opportunity to contest the issue, or that the hearing was not quasi-judicial in nature (Schwartz v Public Adm'r of County of Bronx, supra, at 71; Allied Chem. v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., supra, at 276).

We find however that the Supreme Court erred when it granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's third cause of action on the basis of collateral estoppel. The defendants did not substantiate their claim for summary judgment on that or on any other basis. The burden was upon them to do so. Therefore, summary judgment as to the plaintiff's third cause of action should have been denied (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; Pastoriza v State of New York, 108 A.D.2d 605; Yates v Dow Chem. Co., 68 A.D.2d 907). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Murphy v. Sachem Cent. Sch. Dist. at Holbrook

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 21, 1989
147 A.D.2d 623 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Murphy v. Sachem Cent. Sch. Dist. at Holbrook

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL J. MURPHY, Appellant, v. SACHEM CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT AT…

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

Date published: Feb 21, 1989

Citations

147 A.D.2d 623 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
538 N.Y.S.2d 31

Citing Cases

Twaddell v. Drop & Lock Storage Co.

The Supreme Court denied that branch of the motion. Pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel, which is…

San Marco Construction Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

We note that the doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes the city from claiming on this appeal that it was…