| Millennium Envtl., Inc. v City of Long Beach of State of N.Y. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09369 [56 AD3d 739] |
| November 25, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Millennium Environmental, Inc., Appellant, v City of LongBeach of State of New York, Respondent. |
—[*1] Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo, LLP, Riverhead, N.Y. (Bryan C. VanCott of counsel), for respondent.
In an action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the defendant is obligated to pay theplaintiff certain disposal fees pursuant to a solid waste disposal agreement, the plaintiff appealsfrom a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.), entered May 8, 2007,which, upon an order of the same court entered November 25, 2003, among other things,granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on itscounterclaims, and authorizing it to assert such counterclaims as a setoff against the plaintiff'sclaims for unpaid disposal fees, declared, inter alia, that neither the plaintiff nor the defendanthave any recovery against the other on their respective claims and counterclaims because thedefendant's setoffs exceed the plaintiff's damages under its sixth cause of action for disposal feesunder the solid waste disposal agreement and thus reduce the plaintiff's damages to zero.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Most of the issues raised on this appeal were previously determined against the plaintiff on aprior appeal (see Millenium Envtl., Inc. v City of Long Beach of State of N.Y., 35 AD3d408 [2006]). Reconsideration of those issues is barred by the doctrine of law of the case (seeState of New York v Westchester Joint Water Works, 17 AD3d 665 [2005]; Wendy vSpector, 305 AD2d 403 [2003]; MJD Constr. v Woodstock Lawn & HomeMaintenance, 299 AD2d 459 [2002]).
The plaintiff's only remaining challenge, to the order of the Supreme Court enteredNovember 25, 2003, granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of[*2]liability on its counterclaims, was waived by its failure toassert in its verified reply to the counterclaims the defenses it now raises (see CPLR 3211[e], [a] [1], [5], [6]). Skelos, J.P., Lifson, Santucci and Carni, JJ., concur.