Clinkscale v. Sampson
| Decision Date | 13 March 2013 |
| Citation | 104 A.D.3d 722,960 N.Y.S.2d 506,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 01524 |
| Parties | Bessie CLINKSCALE, respondent, v. Gary SAMPSON, et al., appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael P. Mays, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellants.
Fishman & Mallon, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Kevin C. Mallon of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, and SYLVIA HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful eviction, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated May 30, 2012, which denied their motion, in effect, for leave to renew that branch of a prior motion of the defendants Susan Sampson and 1997 Marcy Avenue, Inc., which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
This Court previously determined the issue raised on the instant appeal ( see Clinkscale v. Sampson, 74 A.D.3d 721, 904 N.Y.S.2d 447). The law of the case doctrine forecloses re-examination of that issue, absent a showing of subsequent evidence or a change in the law ( see Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v. Perez, 70 A.D.3d 817, 817, 894 N.Y.S.2d 509,cert. denied––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 648, 178 L.Ed.2d 480). On this motion, in effect, for leave to renew that branch of a prior motion of the defendants Susan Sampson and 1997 Marcy Avenue, Inc., which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, the defendants failed to present any new evidence which would change the result, and did not demonstrate a change in the law. As we previously determined, their contentions are without merit ( seeCPLR 3211[e] ).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Carey
...( see Stern v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 59 A.D.3d 930, 931–932, 872 N.Y.S.2d 618 [4th Dept.2009];see also Clinkscale v. Sampson, 104 A.D.3d 722, 723, 960 N.Y.S.2d 506 [2d Dept.2013],citing Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v. Perez, 70 A.D.3d 817, 817, 894 N.Y.S.2d 509 [2d Dept.2010],lv. denie......
-
Renee P.-F. v. Frank G.
...a change in the law" ( New York Cent. Lines, LLC v. State of New York, 141 A.D.3d 703, 705, 35 N.Y.S.3d 713 ; see Clinkscale v. Sampson, 104 A.D.3d 722, 723, 960 N.Y.S.2d 506 ; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v. Perez, 70 A.D.3d 817, 817, 894 N.Y.S.2d 509 ). Here, Frank had a full and fair opp......
- Chi. Title Ins. Co. v. LaPierre
-
N.Y. Cent. Lines, LLC v. State
...issues decided on a prior appeal in the same action, absent a showing of new evidence or a change in the law (see Clinkscale v. Sampson, 104 A.D.3d 722, 723, 960 N.Y.S.2d 506 ; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v. Perez, 70 A.D.3d 817, 817, 894 N.Y.S.2d 509 ). Here, the State had a full and fair......