Ometz Realty Corp. v. Vanette Auto Supplies, Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 June 1999
• Citation: 691 N.Y.S.2d 797
• Parties: OMETZ REALTY CORP., etc., respondent, v. VANETTE AUTO SUPPLIES, INC., et al., appellants, et al., defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 797

691 N.Y.S.2d 797

OMETZ REALTY CORP., etc., respondent, v. VANETTE AUTO SUPPLIES, INC., et al., appellants, et al., defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department, New York.

June 21, 1999.

Felton & Associates, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Regina Felton of counsel), for appellants.

Alexander T. Singer, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Richard Edwards, Jr., Carrie B. Edwards, Vanette Auto Supplies, Inc., and Bun-Kay Realty Corp. appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated April 20, 1998, which, inter alia, upon granting the plaintiff's motion to confirm the referee's report, directed the sale of the subject premises.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On this appeal, with the exception of two arguments, the appellants seek to raise again the very issues previously decided against them on a prior appeal (see, Ometz Realty Corp. v. Edwards, 244 A.D.2d 468, 665 N.Y.S.2d 908). Reconsideration of those issues is barred by the doctrine of law of the case (see, Vedic Heritage v. Patel, 232 A.D.2d 477, 648 N.Y.S.2d 173; Mobil Oil Corp. v. City of Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 224 A.D.2d 15, 19, 646 N.Y.S.2d 741; KTM Partnership-I v. 160 West 86th St. Partners, 169 A.D.2d 462, 564 N.Y.S.2d 159). " '[Q]uestions of law that have been resolved by an appellate court on a prior appeal will not be reviewed upon a further appeal to that court' " (Mobil Oil Corp. v. City of Syracuse Industrial Development Agency, supra, at 19, 646 N.Y.S.2d 741 quoting Matter of Local 345 of Retail Store Empls. Union [Heinrich Motors], 96 A.D.2d 182, 186, 468 N.Y.S.2d 240, revd. on other grounds 63 N.Y.2d 985, 483 N.Y.S.2d 997, 473 N.E.2d 247).

The appellants' remaining arguments were not interposed in the Supreme Court, and thus are not properly before this court (see, Antler v. Jamaica 163 Location Corp., 241 A.D.2d 437, 661 N.Y.S.2d 13; Green Point Sav. Bank v. Oppenheim, 217 A.D.2d 571, 628 N.Y.S.2d 595).

SANTUCCI, J.P., JOY, FEUERSTEIN, and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.