Estate of Sassa v. Alfieri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Estate of Sassa v. Alfieri

19 A.D.3d 361, 796 N.Y.S.2d 163

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

DecidedJune 6, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 361 (Estate of Sassa v. Alfieri) 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

Estate of Sassa v. Alfieri, 19 A.D.3d 361, 796 N.Y.S.2d 163 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and unjust enrichment, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), dated October 30, 2003, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[362]*362Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

That branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was based on the same legal arguments and, to a large extent, on the same evidence previously considered by this Court in reviewing the denial of a prior motion by the defendants seeking the same relief (see Sassa v Alfieri, 259 AD2d 690 [1999]). On the prior appeal, this Court found that the evidence in the record “established] the existence of material issues of fact with respect to [the plaintiffs] allegation that he was a one-half owner of the defendant corporations” (Sassa v Alfieri, supra at 691). The defendants’ attempt to distinguish the subject motion from their prior motion is unavailing as the new evidence relied upon does not resolve the material issues of fact found to exist. Under these circumstances, the defendants’ contentions are barred by the doctrine of law of the case (see Mobil Oil Corp. v City of Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 224 AD2d 15, 19 [1996]; Anderson v Anderson, 291 AD2d 836, 837 [2002]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and unjust enrichment, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), dated October 30, 2003, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[362]*362Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

That branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was based on the same legal arguments and, to a large extent, on the same evidence previously considered by this Court in reviewing the denial of a prior motion by the defendants seeking the same relief (see Sassa v Alfieri, 259 AD2d 690 [1999]). On the prior appeal, this Court found that the evidence in the record “established] the existence of material issues of fact with respect to [the plaintiffs] allegation that he was a one-half owner of the defendant corporations” (Sassa v Alfieri, supra at 691). The defendants’ attempt to distinguish the subject motion from their prior motion is unavailing as the new evidence relied upon does not resolve the material issues of fact found to exist. Under these circumstances, the defendants’ contentions are barred by the doctrine of law of the case (see Mobil Oil Corp. v City of Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 224 AD2d 15, 19 [1996]; Anderson v Anderson, 291 AD2d 836, 837 [2002]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 361, 796 N.Y.S.2d 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-sassa-v-alfieri-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack