In re the Claim of Ranni
Cases that cite this one
65 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Foster-Glocester Regional School Committee v. Board of Review (R.I. 2004)
- Continental Holdings, Inc. v. Crown Holdings Inc. (8th Cir. 2012)
- Barry J. Jacobson, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant (2d Cir. 1997)
- Siegel v. Daiwa Securities Co. Ltd. (District Court, S.D. New York 1994)
- Ammcon, Inc. v. Kemp (District Court, E.D. New York 1993)
- Sewell v. New York City Transit Authority (District Court, E.D. New York 1992)
- Katz v. Financial Clearing & Services Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1992)
- Commonwealth Insurance v. Thomas A. Greene & Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1989)
- Schlaifer Nance & Co., Inc. v. Estate of Warhol (District Court, S.D. New York 1991)
- Clemens v. Apple (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Matter of New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund, Inc. v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
- Matter of Bruce (Town of N. Hempstead--Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Piller v. Princeton Realty Assoc. LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- In re the Claim of Telemaque (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- In re the Claim of Telemaque (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- In re the Acquisition of Real Property by the State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- In re the Acquisition of Real Property by the State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Mykhaskiv (Commr. of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- In re the Claim of Mykhaskiv (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- In re the Claim of Winters (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- In re the Claim of Winters (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- In re the Claim of Redd (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re the Claim of Redd (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- New York State Department of Labor v. New York State Division of Human Rights (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Tuper v. Tuper (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
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
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reinstated.
Claimant was a hearing officer employed by the State Department of Social Services. He was charged with insubordination, and the matter went to binding arbitration pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement. After a full hearing, the arbitrator found that claimant was guilty of insubordination and approved the penalty of discharge.
Claimant’s subsequent application for unemployment benefits was denied because he was found to have been discharged for misconduct. An administrative law judge, stating that he was bound by the arbitrator’s factual finding of insubordination, concluded that claimant was discharged for misconduct and confirmed the decision to deny claimant’s application.
It is settled that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to arbitration awards and may serve to bar the subsequent relitigation of a single issue or an entire claim (see Matter of American Ins. Co. [Messinger — Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.], 43 NY2d 184, 189-190). “Claim preclusion” refers to the bar against relitigating a claim or cause of action (see id., at p 189, n 2). “Issue preclusion” is more limited, barring only the relitigation of a discrete factual or legal issue (see id.).
Claim preclusion is not applicable here. The initial arbitration was concerned with the propriety of claimant’s dismissal whereas the instant controversy focused on claimant’s entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits. The ultimate issues are different, and the latter proceeding was therefore not barred by the former.
Issue preclusion is pertinent, however. In the present controversy, the administrative law judge was specifically concerned with determining whether claimant was guilty of misconduct and, hence, disqualified for benefits (see Labor Law, § 593, subd 3). In making this determination, the question of claimant’s conduct leading to his termination necessarily had to be considered. Claimant’s commis
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.
Order reversed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.