| RPG Consulting, Inc. v Zormati |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 01640 [82 AD3d 739] |
| March 1, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| RPG Consulting, Inc., Respondent, v Bedis Zormati,Appellant. |
—[*1] Peter B. Ackerman, White Plains, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to enforce a judgment of a court of the State of Illinois dated August13, 2001, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the SupremeCourt, Westchester County, (Smith, J.), dated October 26, 2009, as denied his motion to dismissthe complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendant appealed from a prior order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, whichgranted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint. That appeal wasdismissed by decision and order on motion of this Court dated April 2, 2007, for failure to timelyperfect in accordance with the Court rules. The defendant also appealed from a subsequent orderof the Supreme Court issued in connection with the defendant's motion "to vacate [the judgment]pursuant to CPLR 5015, subdivision (a), paragraph (3)." However, that appeal was dismissed bydecision and order on motion of this Court dated August 13, 2007, again for failure to timelyperfect in accordance with the Court rules.
Under the circumstances, the doctrine of law of the case requires that we affirm the orderdated October 26, 2009, insofar as appealed from. The law of the case doctrine "is a rule ofpractice, an articulation of sound policy that, when an issue is once judicially determined, thatshould be the end of the matter as far as Judges and courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction areconcerned" (Martin v City of Cohoes, 37 NY2d 162, 165 [1975]). The doctrine "appliesonly to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in the prior decision"(Gilligan v Reers, 255 AD2d 486, 487 [1998] [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeBaldasano v Bank of N.Y., 199 AD2d 184, 185 [1993]), and to the same questions presentedin the same case (see People v Evans, 94 NY2d 499, 502 [2000]; cf. Tillman vWomen's Christian Assn. Hosp., 272 AD2d 979 [2000]; Castle v Gaseteria OilCorp., 263 AD2d 523, 523-524 [1999]). This Court's dismissal of the defendant's priorappeals constituted a determination on the merits (see Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins.Co., 93 NY2d 750, 754 [1999]). The issues raised on those prior appeals and the issue raisedon the present appeal relate to the same questions presented in the same case. Accordingly thedoctrine of law of the case applies, and the order must be affirmed insofar as appealed from (see Matter of Oyster Bay Assoc. Ltd.Partnership v Town Bd. of Town of Oyster Bay, 21 AD3d 964, 966 [2005]). Mastro,J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Lott, JJ., concur.