Hall v. Cucco

5 A.D.3d 631, 774 N.Y.S.2d 770
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 22, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 631 (Hall v. Cucco) 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
Hall v. Cucco, 5 A.D.3d 631, 774 N.Y.S.2d 770 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In an action to recover legal fees, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated October 15, 2002, which granted the plaintiffs motion to prehminarily enjoin her from transferring, selling, disposing of, changing, encumbering, wasting, conveying, or undertaking any act which would affect title to certain real property, conditioned upon the posting of an undertaking in an amount to be fixed by the court, and (2) an order of the same court dated December 19, 2002, which fixed the amount of the undertaking at $20,000.

Ordered that the orders are reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, and the motion is denied.

[632]*632On a prior appeal, this Court determined that the plaintiffs only cause of action sounds in quantum meruit (see Hall v Cucco, 294 AD2d 332 [2002]). The plaintiff did not move for leave to reargue that determination, nor did he seek leave from this Court to appeal to the Court of Appeals. Reconsideration of the issues determined on the prior appeal is now barred by the doctrine of law of the case (see Wendy v Spector, 305 AD2d 403 [2003]). Thus, the plaintiffs remedy, if any, is the reasonable value of the legal services he performed, but not a conveyance of the real property in question. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction (see Credit Agricole Indosuez v Rossiyskiy Kredit Bank, 94 NY2d 541 [2000]).

In light of our determination, the Supreme Court’s order dated December 19, 2002, fixing an undertaking at $20,000, must also be reversed. Altman, J.P., Krausman, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Herszdorfer v. Goldberg
2024 NY Slip Op 30010 (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Sparacio
25 A.D.3d 777 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 A.D.3d 631, 774 N.Y.S.2d 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-cucco-nyappdiv-2004.