Baron v. Baron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baron v. Baron

128 A.D.2d 821, 513 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44513

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 821 (Baron v. Baron) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baron v. Baron, 128 A.D.2d 821, 513 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated August 7, 1981, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, [822]*822J.), entered December 13, 1985, which, inter alia, held that an order of the same court dated July 12, 1983, which ordered that he pay for the infant’s unreimbursed medical expenses of the parties’ child, was "law of the case”.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly held that the doctrine of law of the case precluded the defendant from relitigating an issue that was previously decided by order of the same court dated July 12, 1983. That order held that defendant was responsible for payment of the infant’s medical bills, irrespective of the infant’s assets contained in a certain fund. The defendant now claims that this fund should be used to pay for these expenses. Although the doctrine of law of the case does not apply on appeal from a later order (see, Ennist v Shepherd, 117 AD2d 580), in this case we decline to exercise our discretion to consider the defendant’s contention on the merits (see, Tagarelli v Tagarelli, 50 AD2d 917). Bracken, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated August 7, 1981, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, [822]*822J.), entered December 13, 1985, which, inter alia, held that an order of the same court dated July 12, 1983, which ordered that he pay for the infant’s unreimbursed medical expenses of the parties’ child, was "law of the case”.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly held that the doctrine of law of the case precluded the defendant from relitigating an issue that was previously decided by order of the same court dated July 12, 1983. That order held that defendant was responsible for payment of the infant’s medical bills, irrespective of the infant’s assets contained in a certain fund. The defendant now claims that this fund should be used to pay for these expenses. Although the doctrine of law of the case does not apply on appeal from a later order (see, Ennist v Shepherd, 117 AD2d 580), in this case we decline to exercise our discretion to consider the defendant’s contention on the merits (see, Tagarelli v Tagarelli, 50 AD2d 917). Bracken, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 821, 513 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baron-v-baron-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack