186 A.D.3d 103
N.Y. App. Div.2020Background
- Plaintiff Angel Rojas alleges he was struck by a car driven by Richard Romanoff (owned by Nebraskaland, Inc.) on Sept. 15, 2016 and sued for personal injuries in Bronx County.
- Nationwide (defendants’ insurer) earlier sued in Nassau County for a declaratory judgment, asserting plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault benefits because his injuries did not arise from use/operation of a covered vehicle and were caused while he was operating a motorcycle; defendants were named as nominal parties.
- Plaintiff defaulted in the declaratory judgment action and the court entered a default judgment declaring Nationwide not obligated to pay no-fault benefits or bodily-injury coverage for the incident.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the Bronx personal injury complaint on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds, arguing the prior declaratory judgment precluded plaintiff’s tort suit.
- Supreme Court (Bronx) denied the motion; the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed, holding (1) the default nature of the prior judgment defeats issue preclusion and (2) claim preclusion does not apply because defendants were not adversaries nor in privity with Nationwide in the prior no-fault dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) bars the personal-injury suit | Rojas: prior declaratory judgment resolved causation/coverage issues against him, so those issues can't be relitigated | Romanoff: default judgment in declaratory action conclusively decided causation/coverage issues | Denied — default judgment means issues were not "actually litigated," so collateral estoppel does not apply |
| Whether res judicata (claim preclusion) bars the tort claim | Rojas: prior no-fault adjudication (default) does not preclude a later tort action against the driver/owner | Romanoff: plaintiff could and should have litigated the matters earlier; insurer’s judgment binds insureds/privity exists | Denied — claim preclusion requires same adversarial parties or privity; defendants were nominal/nonadverse parties and not in privity with Nationwide for no-fault benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaufman v. Eli Lilly & Co., 65 N.Y.2d 449 (1985) (default means an issue was not "actually litigated" for collateral estoppel)
- City of New York v. Welsbach Elec. Corp., 9 N.Y.3d 124 (2007) (res judicata requires identity of adversarial parties)
- Parker v. Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 N.Y.2d 343 (1999) (res judicata bars future actions only between the same parties on same cause)
- Buechel v. Bain, 97 N.Y.2d 295 (2001) (distinguishes claim and issue preclusion requirements)
- Baldwin v. Brooks, 83 A.D.2d 85 (4th Dep't 1981) (no-fault insurer/insured not in privity for binding findings on causation)
- Albanez v. Charles, 134 A.D.3d 657 (2d Dep't 2015) (contrasting Second Department decision refusing the approach adopted here)