In this action under Insurance Law § 3420 (b) (1), plaintiff, a shooting victim,
I
On March 13, 1984, plaintiff Robert D’Arata, a shopkeeper, was shot by Wayne Luke. Thereafter, Luke was charged in a multicount indictment involving several store robbery-related offenses. Of relevance here is count 16 which charged Luke
In March 1985 plaintiff brought an action against Luke, Luke’s parents and Luke’s sister. He alleged that his injuries resulted from "the negligent, careless, reckless, willful, and unlawful conduct on the part of the Defendant, Wayne Luke.” Plaintiffs claims against Luke’s relatives were grounded on their negligent entrustment of a handgun to Luke who, defendants knew or should have known, had dangerous propensities.
During the relevant time period, defendant New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company insured Luke’s parents under a homeowner’s policy which, because Luke resided with his parents, also covered Luke as an insured.
On May 13, 1986, after Luke’s failure to answer or otherwise appear, plaintiff was granted a default judgment against Luke, for $325,000.
Collateral estoppel, an equitable doctrine, is based upon the general notion that a party, or one in privity with a party, should not be permitted to relitigate an issue decided against it (see, Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v Lopez,
In determining whether collateral estoppel should be applied so as to bar plaintiff from litigating the issue of Luke’s intent in this action against Luke’s insurer, the initial question is whether plaintiff, a nonparty to the prior criminal proceeding, should, nevertheless, be bound by the adverse determination on intent in that proceeding. In other words, can plaintiff be said to be in legal privity with Luke? Privity, it has been observed, is an amorphous concept not easy of application (see, Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v Lopez,
We turn to the question of whether the two basic requirements for invoking collateral estoppel have been satisfied: (1) that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the
The closer question is whether defendant has proven the requisite identity of the issue between this case and the prior criminal proceeding. First, of course — reflecting the doctrine’s underlying purpose of preventing repetitious litigation of disputes which are essentially the same — there must be an identity between the particular matter in the second action and that presented in the first (see, Restatement [Second] of Judgments § 27, comment c). And it must be shown that this identical issue was necessarily decided in the first proceeding and is conclusive in the subsequent action (id., §27). Here, these two requirements are satisfied. A central issue in the criminal proceeding was whether Luke caused injury to plaintiff with "intent to cause serious physical injury to another person” (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]). To find Luke guilty of assault, first degree, the jury would necessarily have to have been satisfied that Luke acted intentionally — i.e., that his conscious objective was to cause serious physical injury to plaintiff (see, Penal Law § 15.05 [1]). Thus, the jury’s finding on intention was essential to the determination in the prior proceeding. The question in the subsequent action on Luke’s parents’ insurance policy is whether the injury for which plaintiff seeks compensation was "expected or intended by” Luke. The intent to cause serious physical injury found by the jury in the criminal action would certainly be sufficient to establish the requisite element of intent in the action on the insurance policy so as to make the policy exclusion effective and thereby determine plaintiff’s action in defendant’s favor.
But there is a further requirement for establishing issue identity — i.e., that the issue have been "actually litigated” in
Here, of course, in the criminal proceeding the People bore the burden of proving Luke’s intent to injure plaintiff (see, Penal Law § 120.10 [1]). The issue of intent was necessarily submitted to the jury in the court’s charge as a factual question on an essential element of the crime (see, S. T. Grand, Inc. v City of New York,
Plaintiff argues, nevertheless, that the issue of Luke’s intent was never contested and that, therefore, he should not be bound by the jury finding on that question. He points out that Luke’s defenses at the trial on the assault charge were mistaken identification and alibi and that Luke "simply defaulted as to that portion of the indictment that alleged that the act was intentional.” (Appellants’ brief, at 11.) In rejecting this argument, we stress that Luke was convicted of a serious felony charge in a completed jury trial. The jury perforce had to have been satisfied that the prosecution had met its burden of proving Luke’s intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the guilty verdict can only mean that the jury rejected Luke’s defenses of mistaken identity and alibi and accepted the evidence, including plaintiff’s testimony, to the effect that the shooting was intentional. Thus, cases where courts have declined to give collateral estoppel effect to a prior finding based on a guilty plea (see, e.g., Aid Ins. Co. v Chrest,
Finally, plaintiff — noting that the collateral estoppel doctrine reflects general concepts of fairness — argues that he should have his day in court to establish that Luke’s actions in shooting him were unintentional. Plaintiff’s appeal to fairness necessarily presupposes a contention that the jury’s finding in the criminal trial was wrong. We find plaintiff’s argument to be unconvincing. In the criminal trial, Luke’s conviction for intentional assault — a class C felony for which the maximum sentence is 15 years — was based, at least in part, on plaintiff’s own testimony (compare, Gilberg v Barbieri, 53 NY2d 285 [involving conviction of a petty offense in City Court]). The judgment of conviction was affirmed unanimously on appeal (see, People v Luke,
Thus, "based on general notions of fairness involving a practical inquiry into the realities of the litigation” (see, Matter of Halyalkar v Board of Regents, supra, at 268) we conclude that preclusive effect should be given to the jury’s finding that Luke shot plaintiff with intent to cause serious physical injury (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]). This result, we note, furthers the policies underlying the doctrine of collateral estoppel of avoiding relitigation on a decided issue and the possibility of an incongruous result (see, Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v Lopez,
The order of the Appellate Division, dismissing the complaint, should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Bellacosa concur.
Order affirmed, with costs.
Notes
. Plaintiff Robert D’Arata is the party who was shot. The claims of plaintiff Karen D’Arata, Robert’s wife, are derivative. Hereinafter, where necessary, plaintiffs will collectively be referred to as plaintiff.
. Penal Law § 120.10 (1) states that a person is guilty of assault in the first degree when "[w]ith intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.”
. Defendant agreed to defend and indemnify Luke’s parents. These claims are not at issue here.
. $300,000 on Robert D’Arata’s main claim and $25,000 on Susan D’Arata’s derivative claim.
. Insurance Law § 3420 provides: "(b) * * * an action may be maintained by the following persons against the insurer upon any policy or contract of liability insurance * * * to recover the amount of a judgment against the insured * * *: (1) any person who * * * has obtained a judgment against the insured * * * for damages for injury sustained or loss or damage occasioned during the life of the policy or contract”.
. Plaintiff’s reliance on Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Cherry (