ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
The Supreme Court erred when it granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1). The documentary evidence submitted by the defendant did not contradict the complaint's factual claims ( see, Smuckler v. Mercy Coll., 244 A.D.2d 329) or resolve all factual issues as a matter of law and definitively dispose of the plaintiffs claim ( see, Roth v. Goldman, 254 A.D.2d 405).
Contrary to the respondent's contention, the doctrine of judicial estoppel is not applicable to this case. Judicial estoppel, or the doctrine of inconsistent positions, precludes a party who assumed a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and secured a judgment therein from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed ( see, Tilles Inv. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 207 A.D.2d 393, 394; Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Colonial Funding Corp., 215 A.D.2d 435; Prudential Home Mtge. Co. v. Neildan Constr. Corp., 209 A.D.2d 394). Here, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the plaintiff secured a favorable judgment in prior litigation as a result of its adoption of a position that is inconsistent with its position in this action.
BRACKEN, J.P., O'BRIEN, SANTUCCI, and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.