Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that was raised, or could have been raised, in the prior proceeding. The doctrine of collateral estoppel, which applies only to parties who were either a party, or in privity with a party, to a prior action or proceeding, also bars relitigation of an issue which has necessarily been decided in that prior action or proceeding and is determinative of the issues disputed in the present action, provided that there was a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now alleged to be controlling. In order to establish privity with respect to either res judicata or collateral estoppel, the connection between the parties must be such that the interests of the nonparty can be said to have been represented in the prior proceeding. Although relationship alone is not sufficient to support preclusion, privity includes those who are successors to a property interest, those who control an action although not formal parties to it, and those whose interest are represented by a party to the action. The party asserting the conclusive effect of a prior judgment has the burden to establish it.
Bravo v. Atlas Capital Group, LLC, NY Slip Op 04478 (1st Dep't July 21, 2021)
Tomorrow's issue: Appellate practice.
