You are here: / / Appellate Court Recognized Prior Decision Was “Clearly Erroneous” and Did...
,

Appellate Court Recognized Prior Decision Was “Clearly Erroneous” and Did Not Hold Trial Court to It

The Fourth Department noted that a trial court is bound by an appellate decision, even if the decision is wrong.  However, in this case, the Fourth Department upheld the trial court’s modification, acknowledging that its prior decision should not be followed:

It is well settled that, until a decision of this Court is “ ‘modified or reversed by a higher court, . . . the trial court is bound by our decision’ ”…, regardless of whether our decision was correctly decided….  We thus conclude that the Surrogate erred in failing to comply with our prior decision. Nevertheless, this Court is not likewise required to follow our prior decision under the doctrine of law of the case.    Indeed, for the reasons that follow, we conclude that we should not apply the doctrine of law of the case herein, and we therefore affirm the modified decree … .“As the doctrine of . . . law of the case is not one of inflexible law, but permits a reasoned exercise of a certain degree of discretion in its application, the better rule is that the doctrine should not be utilized to accomplish an obvious injustice, or applied where the former appellate decision was clearly, palpably, or manifestly erroneous or unjust . . . [T]he effect of a prior ruling by an appellate court in a later appeal before that court, or in a subsequent stage of the same appeal before that court, presents the problem of balancing the interest in foreclosing reconsideration of the prior decision with the desire for a just result . . .  We recognize that our earlier decision was “clearly erroneous”…, as “shown by contrary authority emanating from [the Court of Appeals,] whose rulings . . . are controlling”…. We also conclude that “correction of the error made on the former appeal [will] create no injustice or hardship, [inasmuch as] no change has been made in the status of the parties in reliance upon the ruling in the former appeal” ….  Matter of Ladelfa, 580, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

You might also like
THE COURT, DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE PROSECUTOR WERE UNDER THE MISCONCEPTION DEFENDANT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR A PAROLE SUPERVISION SENTENCE AT THE TIME DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY; THEREFORE THE MATTER CAN BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESERVATION; PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
Question of Fact Raised by Competing Expert Affidavits
Revocation of Pistol Permit (After Acquittal) Not Supported by Evidence
SEVERE ABUSE FINDING SUPPORTED BY FATHER’S FAILURE TO SEEK IMMEDIATE MEDICAL CARE FOR THE SERIOUSLY INJURED CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).
SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND HER NOTICE OF CLAIM TO REFLECT ALLEGATIONS OF AN ASSAULT AND RAPE SHE MADE IN HER DEPOSITION, ALLEGATIONS WHICH DIFFERED DRAMATICALLY FROM THOSE MADE IN THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF CLAIM.
Non-Supervising Property Owner Not Liable Under Common Law or Labor Law 200 for Injury Stemming from the Manner In Which the Work Is Done
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS DEFENDANT’S EXPERT’S OPINION THAT NERVE DAMAGE WAS NOT THE RESULT OF DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Fact that Medical Guidelines May Be Available to the Public Does Not Warrant Denial of Discovery of Such Documents from the Defendant

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Sovereign Immunity Did Not Apply to Golf Course Owned by Seneca Nation Significant Limitation Need Not Be Permanent to Constitute Serious Injury; Recent...