Vyshedsky v. Soliman (In re Soliman), 539 B.R. 692

On July 27, 2000 Solimán bit Vyshedsky’s nose during an elevator/ hallway altercation, causing severe facial injuries that required numerous stitches; Solimán pled guilty to assault in the third degree for that incident.
Vyshedsky obtained a civil default judgment in New York City Civil Court for $110,695 (compensatory and punitive damages) after Solimán failed to appear; the judgment was final.
Solimán later filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy and Vyshedsky brought an adversary proceeding seeking a declaration that the judgment debt is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) (willful and malicious injury).
At an evidentiary hearing the bankruptcy court found Vyshedsky credible and Solimán not credible, credited photographic and medical evidence of serious injury, and found the assault to be a deliberate injury.
The court considered (1) whether Solimán’s guilty plea collaterally estopped him from asserting self-defense, and (2) whether, even if not precluded, Solimán met his burden to prove self-defense under federal common law and New York law.
Conclusion: the court held the debt nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6) because Solimán acted willfully and maliciously and did not establish a valid self-defense justification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the judgment debt is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)	Vyshedsky: the bite was an intentional, wrongful injury satisfying willful and malicious elements	Solimán: the injury was justified by self-defense	Held: Debt is nondischargeable — the Court found willful and malicious injury proved by a preponderance of the evidence
Whether Solimán’s guilty plea precludes him from asserting self-defense	Vyshedsky: guilty plea collaterally estops self-defense and forecloses a meritorious defense	Solimán: argues self-defense despite the plea	Held: Guilty plea preclusive effect applies; even if not, self-defense fails on the merits
Whether Solimán proved self-defense under federal common law (four-prong test)	N/A (plaintiff disputes justification)	Solimán: faced imminent threat (claimed Vyshedsky brandished a knife) and acted to prevent harm	Held: Self-defense fails — no imminent threat, Solimán placed himself in danger, could have retreated, and biting was not reasonably necessary
Whether self-defense is supported under New York law (reasonableness, duty to retreat)	N/A	Solimán: force was justified given alleged knife threat	Held: Self-defense fails — no credible evidence of knife or imminent deadly force; biting was unreasonable and unjustified; duty/ability to retreat undermines claim

Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1998) (§ 523(a)(6) requires a "deliberate and intentional injury," not merely an intentional act causing injury)
Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1991) (plaintiff bears the preponderance burden to prove nondischargeability)
Navistar Fin. Corp. v. Stelluti (In re Stelluti), 94 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 1996) (malice may be implied from the surrounding circumstances; wrongful act without just cause satisfies the malicious element)
Davis v. Strack, 270 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2001) (reasonableness inquiry for self-defense under New York law)
In re Greene, 397 B.R. 688 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008) (guilty plea has preclusive effect in civil proceedings and self-defense is an affirmative defense)
In re Taylor, 322 B.R. 306 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2004) (raising self-defense admits the underlying act was willful and discusses burden for justification)