Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

Lili B. v. Henry F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 27, 1997

235 A.D.2d 512; 653 N.Y.S.2d 34; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 685

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Aya R. v. Elbaz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Morrow v. Gallagher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Morrow v. Gallagher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Maiello v. Kirchner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Maiello v. Kirchner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
City of New York v. College Point Sports Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Blaich v. Van Herwynen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Zannelli v. Walker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Bascombe v. Bascombe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Bazazian v. Logatto (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Costello v. Lupinacci (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Wagman v. Kandekore (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for battery, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.), entered January 12, 1996, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In December 1994, the defendant pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in the second degree by admitting that he had fondled the infant plaintiff’s vagina during an incident at a public pool. Based on this plea, the plaintiffs commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for battery. The plaintiffs subsequently moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the ground of collateral estoppel, which motion was granted. We now affirm.

"Where a criminal conviction is based upon facts identical to those in issue in a related civil action, the plaintiff in the civil action can successfully invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel to bar the convicted defendant from relitigating the issue of his liability” (McDonald v McDonald, 193 AD2d 590). Whether the conviction is by plea or after trial, all that is required to give effect to the collateral estoppel bar is that there is an identity of issues and that the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the criminal action (see, D’Arata v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 NY2d 659, 664; McDonald v McDonald, supra, at 591; Graves v DiStasio, 166 AD2d 261, 262-263). These conditions are satisfied in this case. Furthermore, this is not a case where the prior criminal proceeding involved a trivial matter (cf., Gilberg v Barbieri, 53 NY2d 285, 292-293). Nor are there any other circumstances in this case which would render the collateral estoppel bar inapplicable, the defendant’s protestations of innocence *513notwithstanding (cf., Sullivan v Breese, 160 AD2d 997). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Pizzuto, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.