In Pivnick v. Beck, 326 N.J. Super. 474, 741 A.2d 655, (App.Div.1999), the Court restated additional considerations relevant to the application of collateral estoppel and noted that the doctrine must be "'applied equitably not mechanically.'" Pivnick, 326 N.J. Super. at 485, 741 A.2d at 661, The Court continued "that it should only be applied where fairness requires such application." Id., 326 N.J.Super. at 485, 741 A.2d 655; In sum, the doctrine is not subject to rigid application but may be applied after a careful assessment and consideration of all relevant factors both in support of and against its application. As the Court identified in Pivnick: Some of the factors favoring application of issue preclusion are: conservation of judicial resources; avoidance of repetitious litigation; and prevention of waste, harassment, uncertainty and inconsistency. Gonzalez, supra, 75 N.J. at 190, 193, 380 A.2d 1128. In contrast, factors disfavoring application of collateral estoppel include: the party against whom preclusion was sought could not have obtained review of the judgment in the initial action; the quality or extensiveness of the procedures in the two actions were different; it was not foreseeable at the time of the initial action that the issue would arise in subsequent litigation; and the party sought to be precluded did not have an adequate opportunity to obtain a full and fair adjudication in the first action. Restatement (Second) of Judgments 278 (1980).