The plaintiff's hearing testimony, while contradicted by the testimony of the defendant, was nonetheless found credible in establishing repeated physical and verbal attacks by defendant. No reason appears to disturb the IAS court's finding that an award of exclusive possession was necessary to protect the safety of persons and property, and was warranted by the existence of the extreme domestic strife (see, Delli Venneri v. Delli Venneri, 120 A.D.2d 238, 240).
An order of the Family Court, New York County, granting mutual orders of protection to the parties, was not entitled to collateral estoppel or res judicata effect because the Family Court matter was settled by stipulation, without prejudice (Kaufman v. Lilly Co., 65 N.Y.2d 449, 456-457). Further, the Family Court proceeding for an order of protection and the Supreme Court proceeding for exclusive possession lacked the identity required for issue or claim preclusion.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Milonas, Smith and Rubin, JJ.