X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Justice Renwick http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&docID=56962 IN A PERSONAL injury action, defendant, the alleged hit-and-run driver, moved to amend her answer to include the affirmative defense of collateral estoppel and to thus grant summary judgment. A judicial hearing officer’s (JHO) decision at a framed issue hearing denying petition seeking to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim determined that the offending vehicle in the hit-and-run belonged to an unidentified driver, not defendant. The dispositive issue before the court was whether the collateral estoppel doctrine applied to the JHO determination. Because the doctrine had been extended to prior arbitration proceedings, the court reasoned that it should apply with greater force to special proceedings conducted in supreme court, where litigants would have the opportunity to employ procedural and substantive rights greater than those in arbitration. Giving the determination’s preclusive effect, the court bound plaintiff to it and dismissed his claim against defendant.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.