Search for: "Megan Holding LLC v Conason" Results 1 - 6 of 6
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jun 2022, 9:04 pm by Public Employment Law Press
The claim, including any cause of action for "fraud on the court," is barred by the doctrines of res judicata (see Rojas v Romanoff, 186 AD3d 103, 108 [1st Dept 2020]) and collateral estoppel (see Conason v Megan Holding, LLC, 25 NY3d 1, 17 [2015]) based on dismissal of the "identical parallel federal court action" and a prior order of this Court affirming the orders that claimant now essentially seeks review of (Moskovits… [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 9:04 pm by Public Employment Law Press
The claim, including any cause of action for "fraud on the court," is barred by the doctrines of res judicata (see Rojas v Romanoff, 186 AD3d 103, 108 [1st Dept 2020]) and collateral estoppel (see Conason v Megan Holding, LLC, 25 NY3d 1, 17 [2015]) based on dismissal of the "identical parallel federal court action" and a prior order of this Court affirming the orders that claimant now essentially seeks review of (Moskovits… [read post]
28 May 2019, 4:42 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The doctrine of collateral estoppel applies when: “(1) the issues in both proceedings are identical, (2) the issue in the prior proceeding was actually litigated and decided, (3) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the prior proceeding, and (4) the issue previously litigated was necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits” (Conason v Megan Holding, LLC, 25 NY3d 1, 17 [internal quotation marks omitted]). [read post]
21 Sep 2022, 2:50 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“ ’Collateral estoppel comes into play when four conditions are fulfilled: (1) the issues in both proceedings are identical, (2) the issue in the prior proceeding was actually litigated and decided, (3) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the prior proceeding, and (4) the issue previously litigated was necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits’ ” (Wilson v City of New York, 161 AD3d 1212, 1216 [2018],… [read post]
24 Oct 2019, 4:10 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Weisman was in privity with the defendant firm (see Conason v Megan Holding, LLC, 25 NY3d 1, 17; Williams v New York City Tr. [read post]
25 Jul 2022, 4:57 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“‘Collateral estoppel comes into play when four conditions are fulfilled: (1) the issues in both proceedings are identical, (2) the issue in the prior proceeding was actually litigated and decided, (3) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the prior proceeding, and (4) the issue previously litigated was necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits'” (Wilson v City of New York, 161 AD3d 1212, 1216, quoting Conason… [read post]