111 East 88th Street Partners v. Fine, 110 Misc. 2d 960 (1981)
- Citation
- 111 East 88th Street Partners v. Fine, 110 Misc. 2d 960 (1981)
- Parent Document
- 111 East 88th Street Partners v. Fine, 110 Misc. 2d 960 (1981)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 1981-09-15
Other Sections in This Document (17)
- 111 East 88th Street Partners v. Fine, 110 Misc. 2d 960 (1981)
- 111 East 88th Street Partners v. Fine, 110 Misc. 2d 960 (1981)
- 111 East 88th Street Partners v. Fine, 110 Misc. 2d 960 (1981)
- 111 East 88th Street Partners v. Fine, 110 Misc. 2d 960 (1981)
- 111 East 88th Street Partners v. Fine, 110 Misc. 2d 960 (1981)
- 111 East 88th Street Partners v. Fine, 110 Misc. 2d 960 (1981)
- 111 East 88th Street Partners v. Fine, 110 Misc. 2d 960 (1981)
- 111 East 88th Street Partners v. Fine, 110 Misc. 2d 960 (1981)
- 111 East 88th Street Partners v. Fine, 110 Misc. 2d 960 (1981)
- 111 East 88th Street Partners v. Fine, 110 Misc. 2d 960 (1981)
- 111 East 88th Street Partners v. Fine, 110 Misc. 2d 960 (1981)
- 111 East 88th Street Partners v. Fine, 110 Misc. 2d 960 (1981)
- 111 East 88th Street Partners v. Fine, 110 Misc. 2d 960 (1981)
- 111 East 88th Street Partners v. Fine, 110 Misc. 2d 960 (1981)
- 111 East 88th Street Partners v. Fine, 110 Misc. 2d 960 (1981)
- 111 East 88th Street Partners v. Fine, 110 Misc. 2d 960 (1981)
- 111 East 88th Street Partners v. Fine, 110 Misc. 2d 960 (1981)
Full Text
849 charsIn Schwartz v Public Administrator of County of Bronx (24 NY2d 65), the Court of Appeals ruled that the only requirement for applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel against a party is that the party must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue, and the issue must have been decided against her/him. The landlord had ample opportunity to litigate its case in the previous proceeding which lasted 17 days. In its opposition to this motion, the landlord does not contest that it was given a full and fair opportunity to rebut the charges of the buildingwide lack of services for the period involved. The court finds that there is no merit to the landlord’s contention that there are *963materially different issues involved here. The issues sub judice are precisely the same as those raised and resolved in the prior proceeding.