Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered April 29, 2008, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered June 13, 2008 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the April 29, 2008 order granting defendant's motion to dismiss, dismissed the complaint.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Plaintiffs commenced this action in the Civil Court, Queens County, to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for injuries their assignor sustained in a motor vehicle accident on June 24, 2003, on the ground that payment of said benefits was overdue. A wholly owned subsidiary of defendant subsequently commenced a Supreme Court action against plaintiffs herein, as well as others, in which it alleged that the same June 2003 accident was staged, and sought a declaratory judgment that there was no coverage as to any claim for first-party no-fault benefits and, thus, that it was not required to defend or indemnify its insured. In June 2007, the Supreme Court awarded judgment to the plaintiff therein on default. In April 2008, defendant herein moved to dismiss the instant complaint, arguing that this action was barred by virtue of the Supreme Court order. The Civil Court granted defendant's motion. The instant appeal by plaintiffs ensued. A judgment dismissing the complaint was subsequently entered.

The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are designed to put an end to a matter once it is duly decided (see Siegel, NY Prac § 442, at 747 [4th ed]). Res judicata, or claim [*2]preclusion, is invoked when a party, or one in privity with the party, seeks to relitigate a disposition on the merits of claims, or causes of action, arising out of the same, or series of, transactions which were raised, or could have been raised, in the prior action (see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]; Schuykill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304, 306-307 [1929]). Res judicata applies "when a different judgment in the second [action] would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the first" (id. at 306-307).

Clearly, the determination as to whether there was coverage is crucial to both plaintiffs and defendant herein, and arises out of the same transaction, i.e., the subject accident (see e.g. Abraham v Hermitage Ins. Co., 47 AD3d 855 [2008]; Sabatino v Capco Trading, Inc., 27 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2006]), and a different judgment in the instant action would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the Supreme Court judgment (see e.g. Schuykill Fuel Corp., 250 NY at 306-307). Moreover, the record establishes that defendant and the wholly owned subsidiary had the requisite privity (see e.g. Spasiano v Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2 AD3d 1466 [2003]). Consequently, plaintiffs were barred from relitigating the claim pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiffs' remaining contentions have no merit or are unpreserved for appellate review. Accordingly, defendant's motion was properly granted, and the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 12, 2009