Opinion ID: 1316495
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Element # 3: Same Parties Or Those In Privity

Text: The fact that Joseph was not a party to the New York action does not settle the issue of preclusion because res judicata applies not only to parties to a prior proceeding in which there was a final adjudication but also to those in privity with them. We must decide, therefore, whether the element of privity is satisfied in this case. The Court of Appeals of New York has stated: In general, a nonparty to a prior litigation may be collaterally estopped by a determination in that litigation by having a relationship with a party to the prior litigation such that his own rights or obligations in the subsequent proceeding are conditioned in one way or another on, or derivative of, the rights of the party to the prior litigation. This constitutes a form of privity; however, the term privity does not have a technical and well-defined meaning. Rather, it is an amorphous concept not easy of application, and includes those who are successors to a property interest, those who control an action although not formal parties to it, those whose interests are represented by a party to the action, and possibly coparties to a prior action. Importantly, all the circumstances must be considered from which one may infer whether or not there was participation amounting to a sharing in control of the litigation. Juan, 89 N.Y.2d at 667-68, 679 N.E.2d at 1065, 657 N.Y.S.2d at 585. See also, Green v. Santa Fe Industries, Inc., 70 N.Y.2d 244, 253, 514 N.E.2d 105, 108, 519 N.Y.S.2d 793, 796 (1987) (the connection between the parties must be such that the interests of the nonparty can be said to have been represented in the prior proceeding (citation omitted).). These characterizations are in accord with the statements of commentators on the issue of privity. There is no generally prevailing definition of privity which can be automatically applied to all cases involving res judicata and collateral estoppel.