Gorelik v Gorelik, 2010 NY Slip Op 01922 (2d Dept. 2010)
“Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court correctly declined to give collateral estoppel effect to the finding made in a Bankruptcy Court order (entered in adversary proceedings between the parties) as to his financial circumstances, in the absence of an identity of issues actually litigated and decided between those proceedings and the within action”
This case is relevant because many times, a court will render a published opinion and deem a certain expert not to be credible. A party in an unrelated case involving a similar diagnostic test or course of treatment will then cite to the adverse opinion and argue, either as a matter of law or fact, that the said doctor’s testimony is not credible. While this practice always seemed to be unfair, there existed a dearth of case law on this issue. I would note that Gorelik takes a lot of bite out of that line of argument.
