Merrill v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 20 December 1984 |
| Citation | 484 N.Y.S.2d 207,106 A.D.2d 818 |
| Parties | Peter P. MERRILL et al., Appellants, v. Richard L. ROBINSON et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Peter P. Merrill, et al. pro se.
Davidson & O'Mara, Elmira (Kevin M. O'Shea, Elmira, of counsel), for respondents.
Before MAIN, J.P., and WEISS, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and LEVINE, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered May 11, 1984 in Chemung County, which denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate a dismissal of this action and which enjoined plaintiffs from initiating any further proceedings relating to this matter.
The instant matter was recently before this court (99 A.D.2d 578, 470 N.Y.S.2d 960), at which time we affirmed an order of Special Term, entered March 11, 1983, denying plaintiffs' motions for, inter alia, vacatur of the dismissal of their case. The suit, which arose out of a motor vehicle accident on September 27, 1978, had been stricken from the Trial Calendar of the Supreme Court of Chemung County in December, 1980, for plaintiffs' neglect to prosecute (CPLR 3404). Plaintiffs have since brought another motion for the same relief before Special Term, the denial of which is the subject of this appeal.
The doctrine of law of the case rendered Special Term's order of March 11, 1983, which denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the dismissal, binding on the Special Term Justice in determining this second motion demanding the same relief (see Siegel, New York Practice, § 276, p. 333; § 448, pp. 593-594). Further, given this court's previous affirmance of the first order, Special Term was similarly constrained to deny the instant motion (see Blumenstock v. Weissman, 47 Misc.2d 266, 268, 262 N.Y.S.2d 405, affd 50 Misc.2d 119, 269 N.Y.S.2d 507; see, also, Bray v. Cox, 38 N.Y.2d 350, 379 N.Y.S.2d 803, 342 N.E.2d 575). That denial is hereby affirmed.
Order affirmed, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aurnou v. Greenspan
...Blumenstock v. Weissman, 47 Misc.2d 266, 262 N.Y.S.2d 405, aff'd, 50 Misc.2d 119, 269 N.Y.S.2d 507 [App Term], and Merrill v. Robinson, 106 A.D.2d 818, 484 N.Y.S.2d 207, lv. dismissed, 64 N.Y.2d 608, 488 N.Y.S.2d 1024, 477 N.E.2d 1108. We agree that the modification sought by defendant is s......
-
Riccardi v. Adinolfi
...New York, Inc., 151 A.D.2d 19, 21, 546 N.Y.S.2d 479, affd., 76 N.Y.2d 533, 561 N.Y.S.2d 697, 563 N.E.2d 11; see also, Merrill v. Robinson, 106 A.D.2d 818, 484 N.Y.S.2d 207), and we decline to address the merits of the plaintiff's entitlement to summary judgment (see, Post v. Post, 141 A.D.2......
-
Merrill v. Robinson
...1108 Merrill (Peter P.) v. Robinson (Richard L.), Syracuse Vending Corporation NO. 129 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK Mar 21, 1985 484 N.Y.S.2d 207, 106 A.D.2d 818 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL Dismissed. ...