## Facts

- Malloy and Trombley were involved in a nighttime rear-end collision on an unlighted rural road in Niagara County, New York.
- Trombley stopped his car on or partly on the shoulder and northbound lane with its lights off while speaking with his passenger.
- A state trooper stopped opposite Trombley’s unlit car, partially on the roadway, left his headlights on, and approached Trombley to question the occupants.
- Malloy approached from behind in the northbound lane at a constant speed and collided with the rear of Trombley’s vehicle; both drivers were seriously injured.
- Malloy and Trombley filed negligence actions against each other in Supreme Court.
- Both also sued the State in the Court of Claims alleging negligence by the trooper; after a joint trial, the Court of Claims found (1) no negligence by the State and (2) contributory negligence by each claimant barring recovery; neither claimant appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether collateral estoppel precluded Malloy from relitigating his contributory negligence in his action against Trombley based on the unappealed Court of Claims determination.
2. Whether an “alternative” finding (contributory negligence) may have preclusive effect when another independent ground (no State negligence) also supported the prior judgment.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s grant of summary judgment dismissing Malloy’s complaint.
- The Court held that the prior Court of Claims finding that Malloy was contributorily negligent and that his negligence was a substantial factor in causing the accident barred Malloy’s recovery against Trombley.
- The Court declined to apply a rigid rule that alternative findings are never “essential” and therefore never preclusive.

## Legal Principles

- Issue preclusion applies when an identical issue was actually litigated and necessarily resolved in a prior proceeding, and the party to be bound had a full and fair opportunity to contest it.
- A prior determination may be given preclusive effect even if it was an alternative basis for the judgment, where the issue was squarely addressed and specifically decided after full litigation.
- Fairness factors inform collateral estoppel, including whether appellate review was available; a party’s failure to appeal an adverse determination can support treating it as final for preclusion purposes.

## Conclusion

Because the Court of Claims, after a full trial, specifically found Malloy contributorily negligent and Malloy had an unreviewed opportunity to challenge that finding on appeal, collateral estoppel barred him from relitigating contributory negligence against Trombley, warranting summary judgment dismissal.


Malloy v. Trombley, 50 N.Y.2d 46 (N.Y. 1980)