IN THE MATTER OF KLEIGER-BROWN v. BROWN

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On this appeal, the father argues that the Family Court's order denying his objections was error. However, the father's present contention is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. It is well settled that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars a party from "relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party" (Parker v. Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 N.Y.2d 343; see Ryan v. New York Telephone Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494). "The doctrine applies if the issue in the second action was `raised, necessarily decided and material in the first action,' and if the party `had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier action'" (Pinnacle Consultants v. Leucadia Natl. Corp., 94 N.Y.2d 426, quoting Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v. Lopez, 46 N.Y.2d 481, 485). Here, the father's contention with respect to child support was determined in a prior appeal (see Brown v. Brown, 239 A.D.2d 535).

The father's remaining contentions are without merit.

FLORIO, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.