J-Mar Service Center, Inc. v. Mahoney, Connor & Hussey
| Decision Date | 27 November 2007 |
| Docket Number | 2006-05838. |
| Citation | 45 A.D.3d 809,2007 NY Slip Op 09363,847 N.Y.S.2d 130 |
| Parties | J-MAR SERVICE CENTER, INC., et al., Appellants, v. MAHONEY, CONNOR & HUSSEY et al., Defendants, and DONAL M. MAHONEY et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the separate motions of the defendants Donal M. Mahoney and Brian M. Hussey, Peter T. Connor, and Dennis Connor to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice insofar as asserted against them are denied.
An appellate court's resolution of an issue on a prior appeal constitutes the law of the case and is binding on the Supreme Court, as well as on the appellate court (see Quinn v Hillside Dev. Corp., 21 AD3d 406, 407 [2005]; Matter of Oak St. Mgt., Inc., 20 AD3d 571 [2005]; Johnson v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 288 AD2d 269 [2001]; Mooney v PCM Dev. Co., 253 AD2d 454, 455 [1998]; Shroid Constr. v Dattoma, 250 AD2d 590 [1998]). "[T]he `law of the case' operates to foreclose re-examination of [the] question absent a showing of subsequent evidence or change of law" (Matter of Yeampierre v Gutman, 57 AD2d 898, 899 [1977]; see Lipovsky v Lipovsky, 271 AD2d 658, 658 [2000]; McIvor v Di Benedetto, 121 AD2d 519, 522 [1986]).
On a prior appeal, upon reviewing the denial of various motions by the respondents to dismiss this action to recover damages for legal malpractice, this Court found that they had failed to meet their burden of demonstrating "that the plaintiffs were unable to prove at least one of the essential elements of a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice" (J-Mar Serv. Ctr., Inc. v Mahoney, Connor & Hussey, 14 AD3d 482, 483 [2005]). We further found, inter alia, that the respondents' remaining contentions, which included their argument that the cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, were without merit. This Court's determination of these issues on the prior appeal constituted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kaval
...the law of the case and is binding on the Supreme Court, as well as on the appellate court" ( J–Mar Serv. Ctr., Inc. v. Mahoney, Connor & Hussey, 45 A.D.3d 809, 809, 847 N.Y.S.2d 130 ; see People v. Evans, 94 N.Y.2d 499, 503, 706 N.Y.S.2d 678, 727 N.E.2d 1232 ), and " ‘forecloses reexaminat......
-
Delgado v. City of N.Y.
...of law" ' (Kenney v. City of New York, 74 A.D.3d 630, 630–631, 903 N.Y.S.2d 53 [2010], quoting J–Mar Serv. Ctr., Inc. v. Mahoney, Connor & Hussey, 45 A.D.3d 809, 847 N.Y.S.2d 130 [2007]). Under the doctrine, parties or their privies are 'preclude[d from] relitigating an issue decided in an ......
-
Micro-Link, LLC v. Town of Amherst
...of [the] question absent a showing of subsequent evidence or change of law’ " ( J–Mar Serv. Ctr., Inc. v. Mahoney, Connor & Hussey, 45 A.D.3d 809, 809, 847 N.Y.S.2d 130 [2d Dept.2007] ). Nevertheless, "where a court has vacated an earlier order, the doctrine of ... law of the case no longer......
-
Haberman v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach
...the law of the case and is binding on the Supreme Court, as well as on the appellate court” ( J–Mar Serv. Ctr., Inc. v. Mahoney, Connor & Hussey, 45 A.D.3d 809, 809, 847 N.Y.S.2d 130; see Quinn v. Hillside Dev. Corp., 21 A.D.3d 406, 407, 800 N.Y.S.2d 206; Matter of Oak St. Mgt., Inc., 20 A.......