JACOBY & MEYERS, LLP v. FLOMENHAFT, 137 A.D.3d 547 (2016)
Court: Supreme Court of New York
Number: innyco20160315437
Visitors: 6
Filed: Mar. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2016
Summary: As Supreme Court found and the parties do not dispute, the arguments defendants raised in support of their motion were raised in a prior summary judgment motion and were rejected by the prior motion court and the Second Department ( see Jacoby & Meyers, LLP v Flomenhaft, 94 A.D.3d 948 [2d Dept 2012]). * On December 21, 2010, the case was transferred from Orange County. Given that defendants had a full and fair opportunity to litigate their arguments, the Second Department's resolution of tho
Summary: As Supreme Court found and the parties do not dispute, the arguments defendants raised in support of their motion were raised in a prior summary judgment motion and were rejected by the prior motion court and the Second Department ( see Jacoby & Meyers, LLP v Flomenhaft, 94 A.D.3d 948 [2d Dept 2012]). * On December 21, 2010, the case was transferred from Orange County. Given that defendants had a full and fair opportunity to litigate their arguments, the Second Department's resolution of thos..
More
As Supreme Court found and the parties do not dispute, the arguments defendants raised in support of their motion were raised in a prior summary judgment motion and were rejected by the prior motion court and the Second Department (see Jacoby & Meyers, LLP v Flomenhaft, 94 A.D.3d 948 [2d Dept 2012]).* On December 21, 2010, the case was transferred from Orange County. Given that defendants had a full and fair opportunity to litigate their arguments, the Second Department's resolution of those arguments on the merits constitutes the law of the case and is binding on Supreme Court as well as this Court (Board of Mgrs. of the 25 Charles St. Condominium v Seligson, 106 A.D.3d 130, 135 [1st Dept 2013]; see also People v Evans, 94 N.Y.2d 499, 502 [2000]). Defendants failed to present any new evidence on its second motion that was unavailable to them at the time the first motion was made, or that would warrant consideration of the second motion. Accordingly, there was no basis for the second motion (see Brown Harris Stevens Westhampton LLC v Gerber, 107 A.D.3d 526, 527 [1st Dept 2013]), and Supreme Court correctly denied the motion as barred by the law of the case (see 106 AD3d at 135).
We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
FootNotes
* On December 21, 2010, the case was transferred from Orange County.
Source: Leagle
