Legal Opinion

Morrison Cohen, LLP v. Fink

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided February 14, 2012PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*515Plaintiff is correct that the conditional vacatur order was based solely on CPLR 317 grounds. Thus, this Court’s conclusion, in its February 2011 order (Morrison Cohen LLP v Fink, 81 AD3d 467 [2011]), that defendant failed to demonstrate a CPLR 317 claim for vacatur became law of the case, as “[a]n 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 re-examination of [the] question absent a showing of subsequent evidence or change of law” (Kenney v…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Woodson v. Mendon Leasing Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 2003
  2. Kenney v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
  3. Morrison Cohen LLP v. FinkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Martinez v. NguyenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
  2. Martinez v. NguyenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
  3. Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v. New York State Off. of Ct. Admin.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2024

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API