Opinion
April 27, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.).
The IAS Court correctly concluded that the claims plaintiff would assert in this action are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, since a prior action based upon the same underlying transactions was concluded against plaintiff and in defendant Tudor Realty Services' favor ( see, O'Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353, 357-358; Smith v. Russell Sage Coll., 54 N.Y.2d 185, 192; Casteliano v. City of New York, 251 A.D.2d 194, appeal dismissed 92 N.Y.2d 919; Corto v. Lefrak, 203 A.D.2d 94, 95, lv dismissed 86 N.Y.2d 774). Although the individual defendants herein, Shaughnessy and Colella, were not named in the original action, it is fundamental that a final determination in a prior action is subsequently binding not only as to the parties to that lawsuit but also those in privity with them ( see, Green v. Santa Fe Indus., 70 N.Y.2d 244, 253; Castellano v. City of New York, supra), and Shaughnessy and Colella are clearly in privity with defendant Tudor Realty Services, which they own and operate. In any event, "collateral estoppel is available to protect those "defendants who were not parties to the earlier, proceedings from having to litigate those issues previously raised and rejected, where, as here, the plaintiff fully participated in the prior proceedings" ( Corto v. Lefrak, 203 A.D.2d, supra, at 95).
Concur — Williams, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.