| Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Perez |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00956 [70 AD3d 817] |
| February 9, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National Association,Respondent, v Bernice Perez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Fein, Such and Crane, LLP, Chestnut Ridge, N.Y. (Michael S. Hanusek of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant appeals from a judgment of foreclosureand sale of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), dated September 24, 2008,which, inter alia, directed the sale of the subject premises.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff was awarded summary judgment in this action to foreclose a mortgage held onproperty owned by the defendant and located in Mount Vernon, Westchester County. This Courtaffirmed the order awarding summary judgment (see Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Perez, 41 AD3d 590 [2007]).Thereafter, the plaintiff moved for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The defendant opposedthe motion. The Supreme Court entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale dated September 24,2008.
"As a general rule, the law of the case doctrine precludes this Court from re-examining anissue which has been raised and decided against a party on a prior appeal where that party had afull and fair opportunity to address the issue" (Frankson v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 67 AD3d 213,217 [2009]; see Allison v Allison,60 AD3d 711, 711 [2009]). The doctrine forecloses re-examination of an issue " 'absent ashowing of subsequent evidence or change of law' " (J-Mar Serv. Ctr., Inc. v Mahoney, Connor & Hussey, 45 AD3d809, 809 [2007], quoting Matter of Yeampierre v Gutman, 57 AD2d 898, 899[1977]). Here, the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to address the issues decided againsther on the prior appeal. Moreover, she provides no basis for re-examining those issues.
The defendant waived her claims that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the instantforeclosure action and that she was not properly served in the action by failing to raise thoseclaims in her answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss (see Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Delphonse, 64 AD3d 624,625 [2009]; HSBC Bank, USA vDammond, 59 AD3d 679, 680 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239,241-243 [2007]; see also CPLR 3211 [e]; Matter of Parkside Ltd. Liab. Co., 294AD2d 582, 583 [2002]; Hatch v Tu Thi Tran, 170 AD2d 649, 650 [1991]).[*2]
The defendant's remaining contentions are either withoutmerit or not properly before this Court. Rivera, J.P., Miller, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ.,concur.