You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , , ,

THE PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP OF A VEHICLE CREATED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE CAN BE REBUTTED BY PROOF OF DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISCOVER THE INSURER’S FILE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT EXERCISED DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that evidence that defendant exercised dominion of control of the vehicle would rebut the presumption of ownership created by a certificate of title. Here the tile was in defendant’s wife’s name and she was driving at the time of the traffic accident. Plaintiff sought to discover the insurer’s file pursuant to CPLR 3124. Supreme Court should have granted the motion:

“A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of ownership” (… Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 128, 2101[g]; 2108[c]…) . However, this presumption may be rebutted by evidence demonstrating that another individual owns the subject vehicle… . This may include evidence that a person other than the title holder exercised “dominion and control” over the vehicle …  .

Here, documents from the insurer concerning the vehicle and the accident are material and relevant to the issue of whether the defendant exercised dominion and control over the vehicle … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendant to provide an executed authorization for documents in the insurer’s possession concerning the vehicle and the accident … . ​Portillo v Carlson, 2018 NY Slip Op 08520, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE JUSTIFIED CONSIDERING EVIDENCE WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION, MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY GRANTED, HOWEVER DELAYS IN DISCOVERY WARRANTED SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined law office failure was an adequate excuse for failing to present evidence in support of plaintiff’s original motion which was submitted in support of a motion to renew. However, in light of plaintiff’s delays in discovery, sanctions were appropriate:

… Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in considering the new evidence submitted by the plaintiff in support of those branches of her motion which were for leave to renew her prior motion and her opposition to the appellants’ cross motion. Although the new facts may have been known to the plaintiff at the time of her prior motion, the plaintiff explained that the new evidence was not submitted in connection with her prior motion and opposition due to a misunderstanding by counsel that ultimately led to law office failure. * * *

“The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the Supreme Court’s discretion” … . “Whether there is a reasonable excuse for a default is a discretionary, sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all relevant factors, including the extent of the delay, whether there has been prejudice to the opposing party, whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits” … . “[T]he court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005) where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue” … . …

… [A]though the plaintiff set forth a reasonable explanation for her failure to fully comply with the conditional order of dismissal, the fact remains that she failed to fully comply with that order, and her conduct during discovery cannot be countenanced … . Consequently, … a monetary sanction in the total sum of $5,000 is warranted to compensate the appellants for the time expended and costs incurred in connection with the plaintiff’s failure to fully and timely comply with the conditional order of dismissal … . Burro v Kang, 2018 NY Slip Op 08457, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

, , ,

FOUR MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO THE DECISION BY THE PLANNING BOARD THAT NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WAS NECESSARY, PETITION TO ANNUL THAT DECISION WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined the four-month statute of limitations applied to the planning board’s decision that an environmental impact statement was not necessary and the petition to annul that decision was untimely:

To the extent that the petition alleges the Planning Board’s noncompliance with SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act], the four-month statute of limitations applies (see CPLR 217[1]…). An action taken by an agency pursuant to SEQRA may be challenged only when such action is final (see CPLR 7801[1]). An agency action is final when the decision-maker arrives at a ” definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury'” … . The position taken by an agency is not definitive and the injury is not actual or concrete if the injury purportedly inflicted by the agency could be prevented, significantly ameliorated, or rendered moot by further administrative action or by steps available to the complaining party … . Here, the statute of limitations began to run with the issuance of the negative declaration for the project on February 19, 2015, as this constituted the Planning Board’s final act under SEQRA and, accordingly, any challenge to the negative declaration had to be commenced within four months of that date … . Matter of Stengel v Town of Poughkeepsie Planning Bd., 2018 NY Slip Op 08488, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

, ,

PETITION TO AMEND A NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS UNTIMELY WITH RESPECT TO THE PARENTS’ DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE PETITIONERS DID NOT SHOW THAT THE TOWN HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT OF TOWN PERSONNEL, PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the petition for leave to amend the notice of claim against the town in this pedestrian-vehicle traffic accident case should not have been granted. The infant petitioner was struck by a car crossing a road. The proposed amendment would have alleged a town park ranger waved the family across just before the child was struck. Because the request to amend was made more than a year and 90 days after the accident, the request was untimely for the derivative action by the parents, but the statute of limitations was tolled for the infant petitioner. The Second Department went on to find that petitioners did not demonstrate the town had timely knowledge of the the allegation the family was waved across the street by a town employee, even though the allegation was memorialized in a Suffolk County police report:

… [T]he petitioners failed to establish that the Town acquired actual knowledge, within 90 days of the collision or a reasonable time thereafter, of the essential facts constituting the claim that the Town park ranger waved to the family to cross the highway. It is not alleged that the child was struck by a Town vehicle or a Town employee. In addition, Magwood’s [mother’s] testimony at her hearing held pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h did not indicate that a Town park ranger waved to the family to cross the highway. Although several witnesses to the collision gave a statement to the effect that the Town park ranger waved to the family to cross the highway, these statements were made to Suffolk County Police Department (hereinafter SCPD) personnel and memorialized in SCPD reports… . Further, while the Town park ranger prepared a Town Division of Enforcement and Security Public Safety report on the date of the collision, that report did not indicate that the Town park ranger waved to the family to cross the highway. ” [F]or a report to provide actual knowledge of the essential facts, one must be able to readily infer from that report that a potentially actionable wrong had been committed by the public corporation'” … . The Town park ranger’s report did not support a ready inference that the Town committed a potentially actionable wrong … .

Moreover, the petitioners failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim asserting the theory that the Town park ranger waved to the family to cross the highway and for the subsequent delay in filing this petition… . Although the petitioners satisfied their initial burden of showing a lack of substantial prejudice to the Town as a result of the late notice, and the Town failed to make a “particularized showing” of substantial prejudice … , the presence or absence of any one factor is not necessarily determinative in deciding whether permission to serve a late notice of claim should be granted … . Matter of Johnson v County of Suffolk, 2018 NY Slip Op 08482, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

, ,

AUDIOTAPES OF CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER AND THE CHILD WERE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED BECAUSE THEY WERE THE PRODUCT OF ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING UNDER CPLR 4506 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Family Court properly suppressed audiotapes of conversations between the paternal grandmother and the child in this custody dispute between the maternal and paternal grandmothers. The audiotapes constituted illegal wiretapping pursuant to CPLR 4506:

Contrary to the maternal grandmother’s contention, the Family Court properly granted the paternal grandmother’s motion to suppress audiotapes of conversations between the paternal grandmother and the child pursuant to CPLR 4506, which provides for the suppression of evidence obtained by illegal wiretapping. The maternal grandmother and her son (the child’s uncle) were not parties to the conversation, were not present during the conversation, and the maternal grandmother does not assert that, under the circumstances, any vicarious consent was given… . Moreover, there is no merit to the maternal grandmother’s contention that the motion was untimely because it was not made before the hearing, since the paternal grandmother only learned of the existence of the tapes during the hearing (see CPLR 4506[4]). Matter of Dennis v Davis-Schloemer, 2018 NY Slip Op 08480, Second Dept 12-12-18

MOTION TO SUPPRESS, SUPPRESSION

,

GENERAL RELEASE WAS NOT LIMITED TO A 2007 ACTION AND THEREFORE PRECLUDED THE 2014 ACTION, A UNILATERAL MISTAKE DOES NOT INVALIDATE A CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that, although the release signed by plaintiff (Moore) mentioned a 2007 action, the release stated it was not limited to the 2007 action. Therefore it applied to the instant action. The fact that plaintiff may not have intended that it apply to the current proceedings, a unilateral mistake, does not invalidate a contract:

The general release, executed by Moore after he commenced the present action, released defendant “from all manner of . . . claims and demands . . . in law or in equity that against [defendant] he ever had, now has or which he . . . shall or may have for any reason from the beginning of the world to the date of this release.” Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that the release is limited by its terms to the 2007 action, noting that “where a release contains a recital of a particular claim . . . and there is nothing on the face of the instrument other than general words of release to show that anything more than the matters particularly specified was intended to be discharged, the general words of release are deemed to be limited thereby” … . The release, however, does not limit or otherwise restrict itself to the 2007 action. Rather, it clearly and unambiguously specifies that it “includes, but is not limited to,” the incident that led to the 2007 action … . Moore executed the release with full knowledge that this action was pending against defendant, and the “timing and unequivocal and unconditional language” of the release therefore demonstrates its applicability to the 2014 action at issue here … . …

Although plaintiffs claim that Moore did not intend for the release to encompass this action when he executed it, “the fact that [Moore] may have intended something else is irrelevant[, as] a mere unilateral mistake . . . with respect to the meaning and effect of the release . . . does not constitute an adequate basis for invalidating” it … . Stevens v Town of Chenango (Forks), 2018 NY Slip Op 08389, Third Dept 12-6-18

CONTRACT LAW (GENERAL RELEASE WAS NOT LIMITED TO A 2007 ACTION AND THEREFORE PRECLUDED THE 2014 ACTION, A UNILATERAL MISTAKE DOES NOT INVALIDATE A CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT))/RELEASES  (GENERAL RELEASE WAS NOT LIMITED TO A 2007 ACTION AND THEREFORE PRECLUDED THE 2014 ACTION, A UNILATERAL MISTAKE DOES NOT INVALIDATE A CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (GENERAL RELEASE WAS NOT LIMITED TO A 2007 ACTION AND THEREFORE PRECLUDED THE 2014 ACTION, A UNILATERAL MISTAKE DOES NOT INVALIDATE A CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department. reversing Supreme Court, determined that the medical malpractice action should have been dismissed as time-barred. Plaintiff alleged a ureteral stent/catheter was inserted during surgery in 1993 and was discovered and removed in 2012. If the stent were a “foreign object,” the action would have been timely. But the stent was deliberately inserted for a medical purpose, although it should have been removed after up to six months. Because the stent was purposely inserted, it was not a “foreign object:”

… [T]he plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the ureteral stent/catheter allegedly inserted in his body was a “foreign object” such that the discovery rule should apply. According to the parties’ experts, a ureteral stent/catheter is a tube that bridges the kidney to the bladder, and is inserted and intentionally left in a patient for up to six months to assist in the draining of the kidney when the ureter is obstructed or when damage to the ureter was repaired and it is healing. The parties’ experts agree that if a ureteral stent/catheter was inserted in the plaintiff’s body during the 1993 procedure, then it was intentionally left in his body for the purpose of assisting in the draining of the kidney. Thus, the device was retained in the plaintiff’s body (if inserted at all) for ” postsurgery healing purposes'” and was not “analogous to tangible items” or “surgical paraphernalia,” such as clamps, scalpels, sponges, and drains, “introduced into a patient’s body solely to carry out or facilitate a surgical procedure”… . For these reasons, the ureteral catheter/stent was not a “foreign object,” and the action should have been dismissed as time-barred … . Livsey v Nyack Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 08289, Second Dept 12-5-18

NEGLIGENCE (A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSES AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSES AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSES AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/FOREIGN OBJECT (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSES AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSES AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))

,

SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS NOT READY FOR TRIAL AND REFUSING TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A ‘SUBSTITUTE EXPERT,’ DISMISSAL WAS NOT ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE THE DISMISSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ‘WITH PREJUDICE,’ ALTHOUGH NO APPEAL LIES FROM A JUDGMENT ENTERED UPON DEFAULT, THE UNDERLYING ISSUES MAY BE REVIEWED (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department determined; (1) although no appeal lies from a judgment entered by default against the appealing party the contested issues may be reviewed; (2) Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint because plaintiff was not ready to proceed; (3) Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow plaintiff to present a “substitute expert” when the noticed expert could not appear at trial; (4) Supreme Court should not have dismissed the action with prejudice because the dismissal was not on the merits:

Although no appeal lies from a judgment entered upon the default of the appealing party (see CPLR 5511), an appeal from such a judgment brings up for review ” those matters which were the subject of contest before the Supreme Court'” … . …

“Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27(b), a court has the discretion to direct dismissal of a complaint where the plaintiff fails to appear or is not ready to proceed” … . Here, the plaintiff was not ready to proceed to trial due to the unavailability of her expert. …

Pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i), “where a party for good cause shown retains an expert an insufficient period of time before the commencement of trial to give appropriate notice thereof, the party shall not thereupon be precluded from introducing the expert’s testimony at the trial solely on grounds of noncompliance with this paragraph” … . “A determination regarding whether to preclude a party from introducing the testimony of an expert witness at trial based on the party’s failure to comply with CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) is left to the sound discretion of the court” … . Here, since the plaintiff offered only a vague excuse for the unavailability of the intended expert, without offering any details as to when the plaintiff learned of that expert’s unavailability, she failed to establish good cause to offer the testimony of the “substitute expert” … . Moreover, the plaintiff had previously been unprepared to proceed with trial due to, inter alia, the unavailability of experts … .

… “[S]ince dismissal of an action for a default pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 does not constitute a determination on the merits,” the dismissal should have been without prejudice … . Geffner v Mercy Med. Ctr., 2018 NY Slip Op 08280, Second Dept 12-5-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS NOT READY FOR TRIAL AND REFUSING TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A ‘SUBSTITUTE EXPERT,’ DISMISSAL WAS NOT ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE THE DISMISSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ‘WITH PREJUDICE,’ ALTHOUGH NO APPEAL LIES FROM A JUDGMENT ENTERED UPON DEFAULT, THE UNDERLYING ISSUES MAY BE REVIEWED (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS NOT READY FOR TRIAL AND REFUSING TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A ‘SUBSTITUTE EXPERT,’ DISMISSAL WAS NOT ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE THE DISMISSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ‘WITH PREJUDICE,’ ALTHOUGH NO APPEAL LIES FROM A JUDGMENT ENTERED UPON DEFAULT, THE UNDERLYING ISSUES MAY BE REVIEWED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

TOWN SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO BUILD A FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the town should be held in contempt for failure to erect a fence on town land in accordance with a stipulation. Plaintiff had requested the fence because people were crossing town land to trespass on plaintiff’s property:

“In order to sustain a finding of civil contempt, it is not necessary that the disobedience be deliberate or willful; rather, the mere act of disobedience, regardless of its motive, is sufficient if such disobedience defeats, impairs, impedes or prejudices the rights of a party” … .

In order to adjudicate a party in civil contempt, a court must find: (1) that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect, (2) that the party against whom contempt is sought disobeyed the order, (3) that the party who disobeyed the order had knowledge of its terms, and (4) that the movant was prejudiced by the offending conduct… . The party seeking a finding of civil contempt must prove these elements by clear and convincing evidence … .

Here, the plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that the so-ordered stipulation clearly expressed an unequivocal mandate to construct a fence… , that the Town had knowledge of the stipulation and nevertheless disobeyed it, and that the plaintiff was prejudiced by the offending conduct.

In opposition, the Town failed to refute the plaintiff’s showing or to offer evidence of a defense such as an inability to comply with the order … . Palmieri v Town of Babylon, 2018 NY Slip Op 08317, Second Dept 12-5-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (TOWN SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO BUILD A FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT))/CONTEMPT (TOWN SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO BUILD A FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (CONTEMPT, TOWN SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO BUILD A FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT))

,

PRIOR RULINGS ON APPEAL CONSTITUTE THE LAW OF THE CASE, SUPREME COURT RULING TO THE CONTRARY REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

 

The Second Department determined the contested matters had already been ruled upon in a prior appeal and therefore constituted the law of the case which must be followed. The contrary ruling by Supreme Court was reversed:

“An appellate court’s resolution of 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 . . . [and] operates to foreclose reexamination of [the] question absent a showing of subsequent evidence or change of law” … . On the prior appeal, this Court considered, and rejected, the arguments that Pascuitti [a resondent] was no longer a proper party to this proceeding and that the petitioner could not seek relief against the individual movants in the contempt motion … . The Town and the individuals movants have failed to make a sufficient showing to warrant reexamination of these issues… . Accordingly, based on the law of the case doctrine, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting the motion … . Matter of Norton v Town of Islip, 2018 NY Slip Op 08308, Second Dept 12-5-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (APPEALS, LAW OF THE CASE, PRIOR RULINGS ON APPEAL CONSTITUTE THE LAW OF THE CASE, SUPREME COURT RULING TO THE CONTRARY REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (LAW OF THE CASE, LAW OF THE CASE, PRIOR RULINGS ON APPEAL CONSTITUTE THE LAW OF THE CASE, SUPREME COURT RULING TO THE CONTRARY REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OF THE CASE (PRIOR RULINGS ON APPEAL CONSTITUTE THE LAW OF THE CASE, SUPREME COURT RULING TO THE CONTRARY REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (LAW OF THE CASE, LAW OF THE CASE, PRIOR RULINGS ON APPEAL CONSTITUTE THE LAW OF THE CASE, SUPREME COURT RULING TO THE CONTRARY REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

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