Eastside Exhibition Corp. v. 210 East 86th Street Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eastside Exhibition Corp. v. 210 East 86th Street Corp.

79 A.D.3d 417, 911 N.Y.S.2d 610

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

DecidedDecember 2, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 79 A.D.3d 417 (Eastside Exhibition Corp. v. 210 East 86th Street Corp.) 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

Eastside Exhibition Corp. v. 210 East 86th Street Corp., 79 A.D.3d 417, 911 N.Y.S.2d 610 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

[418]*418Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about July 30, 2009, which, after a hearing, determined that plaintiff was not entitled to any abatement of rent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

“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 re-examination of [the] question absent a showing of subsequent evidence or change of law” (J-Mar Serv. Ctr., Inc. v Mahoney, Connor & Hussey, 45 AD3d 809, 809 [2007] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Martin v City of Cohoes, 37 NY2d 162 [1975]). Accordingly, based upon our prior determination, the motion court properly rejected plaintiff’s claim. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

[418]*418Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about July 30, 2009, which, after a hearing, determined that plaintiff was not entitled to any abatement of rent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

“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 re-examination of [the] question absent a showing of subsequent evidence or change of law” (J-Mar Serv. Ctr., Inc. v Mahoney, Connor & Hussey, 45 AD3d 809, 809 [2007] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Martin v City of Cohoes, 37 NY2d 162 [1975]). Accordingly, based upon our prior determination, the motion court properly rejected plaintiff’s claim. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 417, 911 N.Y.S.2d 610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eastside-exhibition-corp-v-210-east-86th-street-corp-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack