55 N.Y.2d 790 (1981)
Collateral estoppel does not apply when there is a change in factual circumstances between the prior and current proceedings that significantly alters the issues presented.
Summary
Manitou Sand & Gravel Co. applied for an excavation permit in 1980, encompassing land beyond what was included in their 1979 permit. The town imposed a depth limitation. Manitou challenged the limitation, arguing collateral estoppel based on the 1979 permit approval. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling that collateral estoppel applied, holding that the expanded area in the 1980 application constituted a sufficient change in factual circumstances to render collateral estoppel inappropriate. The case was remanded to the Appellate Division to review the merits of the Article 78 proceeding concerning the depth limitation.
Facts
1. Manitou Sand & Gravel Co. received an excavation permit from the Town of Ogden in 1979.
2. In 1980, Manitou applied for a new permit.
3. The 1980 application included not only the property covered by the 1979 permit but also additional, contiguous acreage.
4. The Town Board imposed a depth limitation condition on the 1980 permit.
Procedural History
1. Manitou brought an Article 78 proceeding to annul the depth limitation imposed by the Town Board.
2. Special Term found in favor of Manitou, concluding that collateral estoppel applied and that Manitou was entitled to relief even without collateral estoppel.
3. The Appellate Division affirmed solely on collateral estoppel grounds.
4. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding collateral estoppel inapplicable due to changed factual circumstances, and remanded the case to the Appellate Division to review the merits of the Article 78 application.
Issue(s)
Whether the inclusion of additional contiguous acreage in the 1980 permit application, beyond what was included in the 1979 permit, constitutes a sufficient change in factual circumstances to render the doctrine of collateral estoppel inapplicable.
Holding
Yes, because the petitioner’s 1980 permit application encompassed not only the property it had been excavating under the 1979 permit, but also additional contiguous acreage not contemplated for excavation in 1979, thus rendering application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel in the 1980 proceeding inappropriate.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals focused on the change in factual circumstances between the two permit applications. The court acknowledged that collateral estoppel might apply in situations where the circumstances are essentially the same. However, it found that the inclusion of additional acreage in the 1980 application constituted a significant change. This change potentially altered the considerations relevant to the Town Board’s decision regarding the permit, including environmental impact, traffic, and other factors. Because the Appellate Division affirmed solely on collateral estoppel grounds, the Court of Appeals remitted the matter for a review of the merits of the Article 78 application, addressing the validity of the depth limitation. The court reasoned that the expanded scope of the proposed excavation could reasonably lead the town to impose different or additional conditions on the permit. Therefore, the issues in the 1979 and 1980 proceedings were not identical, precluding the application of collateral estoppel. The court did not elaborate on specific policy considerations but implied that allowing collateral estoppel in such a scenario would unduly restrict the town’s ability to regulate land use based on evolving circumstances. The court stated: “To be sure there may be instances where the circumstances are so parallel as to call for the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel; however, the particular change in factual circumstances involved in this instance renders the application of the doctrine in the 1980 proceeding inappropriate.”