| Allison v Allison |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01760 [60 AD3d 711] |
| March 10, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Katharine Allison, Appellant, v William B. Allison,Respondent. |
—[*1] Berman Bavero Frucco & Gouz P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Howard Leitner of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief,from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, Jr., J.), enteredNovember 30, 2007, as denied those branches of her motion which were to vacate the judgmentof divorce dated January 28, 2004, for an upward modification of child support, and for an awardof maintenance.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Review of the plaintiff's contention regarding the unsigned order of reference is barred bythe doctrine of law of the case, as this Court has already decided this exact issue on a priorappeal (see Allison v Allison, 28AD3d 406 [2006], cert denied 549 US 1307 [2007]). An appellate court's resolutionof 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 (seeJ-Mar Serv. Ctr., Inc. v Mahoney, Connor & Hussey, 45 AD3d 809 [2007]).
The plaintiff's contention that the Special Referee was biased and, therefore, should haverecused himself, is without merit. In the absence of a mandatory statutory basis fordisqualification, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate that the alleged bias of the SpecialReferee affected the result of the trial (see K. v B., 13 AD3d 12, 20 [2004]). Here, she failed to make therequisite showing.[*2]
The plaintiff's contention that the court erred in denyingher requests for an upward modification of child support and an award of maintenance is withoutmerit. The plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing that she was unable to beself-supporting or that a substantial change in circumstances had occurred since the date of thejudgment of divorce (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Trainor vTrainor, 188 AD2d 461 [1992]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Florio, Dickerson andBelen, JJ., concur.