Brugman v. City of New York
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Bess v. Spitzer (District Court, E.D. New York 2006)
- Giakoumelos v. Coughlin (2d Cir. 1996)
- Giakoumelos v. Coughlin (2d Cir. 1996)
- Solimino v. Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n (District Court, E.D. New York 1989)
- Mercy Flight Central, Inc. v. Kondolf (Canandaigua City Court 2013)
- Dacey v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership (N.Y. 2013)
- Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Rendina (New York District Court 2012)
- Pisano v. New York City Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Mantin v. Zaslavsky (New York Supreme Court 1997)
- Browning Avenue Realty Corp. v. Rubin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc. v. New York State Thruway Authority (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1990)
- Stevenson v. Goomar (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Allied Chemical v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (N.Y. 1988)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
We need not decide whether the proceedings before the Medical Board warrant a departure from the general rule of issue preclusion. The plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to be heard. He had no occasion for cross-examination; his was the only evidence before the board. He admitted on argument that he had no other evidence to present and was unaware of any evidence that might be discoverable. The issue of the cause of his medical condition is thus precluded by the board’s determination.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye and Lynch
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Designated pursuant to NY Constitution, article VI, § 2.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.