The New York Court of Appeals rarely grants motions to reargue its decisions. But in a recent case, Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Partnership, 22 N.Y.3d 246 (2013), it did just that, and unanimously recalled and reversed its original holding. In its first decision in the case, 20 N.Y.3d 1035 (2013), the court found that an administrative law judge’s decision in Workers’ Compensation court that an injured party was not “disabled” from work after a certain period of time collaterally estopped him from pursuing a future lost wages claim in his personal injury case. In its second decision, the court found to the contrary.
In an article in the New York Law Journal, Louis F. Eckert and Michael J. Kozoriz (“Collateral Estoppel of Administrative Decisions on Civil Actions,” NYLJ, March 6, 2014) argued that the court’s second decision in the case “gave no insight to the court’s thought process in granting reargument and reversing its earlier decision” and that the two decisions “cannot be reconciled.” However, a careful reading of the second decision, coupled with an understanding of the legal principles applicable to the case, makes clear the rationale for the court’s reversal.
Background Principles
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
