affirmative defense asserted by the plaintiff against the counterclaims is granted. Specifically, the
second affirmative defense (offset) alleges that the defendant owner wrongfully collected the
rents owed to the plaintiff from his tenant in Apartment 7Y. The defendant owner seeks a
dismissal of the second affirmative defense on the ground of collateral estoppel.
The defense raised by Roshodesh in his answer to the Civil Court petition [*4]concerned the owner's alleged illegal collection of rent from the
tenant in Apartment 7Y. "The doctrine of collateral estoppel, a narrower species of res judicata,
precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in
a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity, whether or not the
tribunals or causes of action are the same ***." (Ryan v New York Telephone Co., 62
NY2d 494, 500 [1984]; Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., 93 NY2d 343 [1999];
Altegra Credit Co. v Tin Chu, 29
AD3d 718 [2nd Dept. 2006]; Sam v Metro-North Commuter Railroad, 287 AD2d
378 [1st Dept. 2001]). Housing Court Judge Elizabeth Tao, in a ruling dated March 14, 2008,
ruled that Roshodesh, the respondent-tenant in that proceeding, failed to prevail at trial on the
defenses.
The second affirmative defense is thus barred pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
The Court notes that paragraph 32(b) of the lease provides in relevant part: "If the Lessee shall at
any time sublet the apartment and shall default in the payment of any rent or additional rent, the
Lessor may, at its option, so long as such default shall continue, demand and receive from the
subtenant the rent due or becoming due from such subtenant to the Lessee, and apply the amount