SCIPIO, JACKIE D. v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P. , 953 N.Y.S.2d 776 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    1204
    CA 12-00382
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.
    JACKIE D. SCIPIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P. AND ANTHONY DESANTIS,
    DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
    LESLIE H. COHEN, EAST SYRACUSE (KATHLEEN STEVENSON OF COUNSEL), FOR
    PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
    O’CONNOR, O’CONNOR, BRESEE & FIRST, P.C., ALBANY (MICHAEL P. CAVANAGH
    OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
    Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County
    (Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), entered April 27, 2011. The order granted
    the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the
    complaint.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed without costs.
    Memorandum: In this personal injury action, plaintiff appeals
    from an order granting the motion of defendants for leave to amend the
    answer to assert the affirmative defenses of res judicata and
    collateral estoppel and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint
    based on those doctrines. We reject plaintiff’s contention that those
    doctrines do not apply to the facts before us. We note at the outset
    that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel “are
    applicable to give conclusive effect to the quasi-judicial
    determinations of administrative agencies” (Ryan v New York Tel. Co.,
    62 NY2d 494, 499; see Yoonessi v State of New York, 289 AD2d 998,
    1000, lv denied 98 NY2d 609, cert denied 
    537 US 1047
    ). Furthermore,
    contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendants “ ‘demonstrate[d] the
    identicality and decisiveness of the issue’ ” decided in the prior
    administrative proceeding, and plaintiff failed to establish “ ‘the
    absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in [the]
    prior . . . proceeding’ ” (Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93
    NY2d 343, 349, quoting Ryan, 62 NY2d at 501).
    Contrary to plaintiff’s further contention, Supreme Court did not
    abuse or improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that part
    of defendants’ motion for leave to amend the answer. “Leave to amend
    the pleadings ‘shall be freely given’ absent prejudice or surprise
    resulting directly from the delay” (McCaskey, Davies & Assoc. v New
    -2-                         1204
    CA 12-00382
    York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 59 NY2d 755, 757, quoting CPLR 3025
    [b]; see Bryndle v Safety-Kleen Sys., Inc., 66 AD3d 1396, 1396) and,
    here, plaintiff failed to establish either prejudice or surprise
    resulting from the delay.
    Entered:   November 9, 2012                    Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CA 12-00382

Citation Numbers: 100 A.D.3d 1452, 953 N.Y.S.2d 776

Filed Date: 11/9/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2024