## Facts

- Xiao Yang Chen and Ian Ira Fischer married on March 11, 2001, and soon filed competing divorce claims alleging cruel and inhuman treatment; Chen also asserted fraudulent inducement.
- Chen alleged a May 6, 2001 incident in which Fischer slapped her and attempted to suffocate her, causing injury.
- Each party filed a family-offense petition; temporary orders of protection issued, and the petitions were consolidated with the matrimonial action.
- Before trial, the parties stipulated to withdraw all but one fault allegation per party; the May 6 allegations were withdrawn.
- After trial on remaining matrimonial issues, the court entered a dual judgment of divorce on May 8, 2002, based on each party’s single remaining fault allegation.
- While the divorce action was pending, Chen filed a separate tort action (Jan. 18, 2002) alleging assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from the May 6 incident.
- Fischer moved to dismiss the tort action under CPLR 3211(a)(5), asserting res judicata and estoppel; Supreme Court dismissed, and the Appellate Division affirmed on res judicata grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether res judicata bars a spouse’s post-divorce independent tort action for personal injuries arising from marital conduct that also formed part of the factual background of the divorce action.
2. Whether issue preclusion or related estoppel theories can bar the tort action when the tort issues were not actually litigated and necessarily decided in the matrimonial proceeding.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated Chen’s tort action.
- The court held res judicata did not bar the tort claims because the divorce proceeding did not actually adjudicate, or necessarily decide, the personal-injury claims tied to the May 6 incident.
- The court rejected issue-preclusion and similar estoppel defenses because the relevant tort issues were not actually litigated and necessarily decided in the divorce case.
- The matter was remitted for the tort action to proceed on the merits.

## Legal Principles

- New York applies a transactional res judicata doctrine, but it is not applied mechanically; courts consider whether the party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the later-asserted claim and whether claim preclusion would serve finality, consistency, and efficiency.
- A matrimonial action (dissolution and economic incidents) and a personal-injury tort action (compensatory damages for physical or emotional harm) are not automatically the same “claim” for res judicata purposes, even if they share facts.
- When a divorce judgment rests on narrowed fault allegations—especially where stipulations withdraw allegations tied to the alleged tort—those withdrawn matters are not treated as finally adjudicated for purposes of barring later tort litigation.
- Collateral estoppel requires actual litigation and a necessary determination of the issue in the prior proceeding; absent that, it does not preclude later tort claims.

## Conclusion

The court held that a divorce judgment based on limited, stipulated fault grounds did not preclude a former spouse’s separate tort action for alleged domestic-violence-related injuries where the tort issues were not actually litigated or necessarily decided in the matrimonial proceeding.


Chen v. Fischer, 6 N.Y.3d 94, 843 N.E.2d 723 (N.Y. 2005)