the settlement in part is barred by res iudicata.
               As to collateral estoppel, it is clear that in the first action plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity to litigate every conceivable ground for vacatur, in whole or in part, of the settlement. It is equally clear that the arguments made in this, second action necessarily were rejected in the first action, because if they had not been rejected, the Supreme Court and Appellate Division could not have ruled as they did.
               Plaintiffs do not attempt to argue that any novel or important issue concerning res iudicata or collateral estoppel would be presented by the appeal they seek leave to take. We can conceive of none. Once again, it is plain that the remedy for plaintiffs’ complaint that their arguments were not addressed by the Supreme Court and Appellate Division in the first action was to move for reargument, as the Appellate Division stated in the order sought to be appealed from.
Click for Previous Page
Click for Final Page
Click for New York State Appeal, "Contracts for Silence"