5.    Plaintiffs suggest that the collateral estoppel bar should not apply to the instant malpractice/fraud/breach of fiduciary duty claim because Judge Heitler’s 28-page decision was purportedly "summary" in nature as it was rendered without holding an "evidentiary hearing" and was wrong. See Plaintiffs’ Joint Affidavit in Opposition at ¶¶ 49, 53, 57, 60 and 62.
     6.    The "burden rests upon the opponent [of collateral estoppel] to establish the absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in [the] prior action or proceeding." See Parker v. Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Company, 93 N.Y.2d 343, 690 N.Y.S.2d 478 (1999); see also Ryan v. N.Y. Telephone Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494, 467 N.E.2d 487, 478 N.Y.S.2d 823 (1984).
     7.    Plaintiffs herein have completely failed to meet their burden of establishing that they did not receive a full and fair opportunity in the prior proceedings to litigate the issues of the voluntariness of their consent to settlement and absence of duress or coercion.
     8.    Plaintiffs’ assertion that in the absence of a full-blown evidentiary hearing, they did not receive the full and fair opportunity to be heard necessary for application of the collateral estoppel bar is legally erroneous. There is absolutely no doubt that the decisions rendered by courts upon motion and on appeal have been applied to provide the collateral estoppel bar to subsequent claims based upon discrete issues necessarily

Click for Previous Page
Click for Next Page (4/20)
Click for Legal Malpractice Lawsuit