Sterngass v. Town Board of Clarkstown

43 A.D.3d 1037, 841 N.Y.S.2d 453
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 18, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 43 A.D.3d 1037 (Sterngass v. Town Board of Clarkstown) 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
Sterngass v. Town Board of Clarkstown, 43 A.D.3d 1037, 841 N.Y.S.2d 453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

In related actions, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the rezoning of the plaintiffs’ properties from MF-3 to MF-1 null and void, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), dated December 30, 2005, as denied that branch of their motion which was for leave to amend the complaints in action Nos. 1 and 2 to add a cause of action for a judgment declaring that the subject properties remain governed by the 1939 Town of Clarkstown Zoning Ordinance.

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

Pursuant to the doctrine of law of the case, judicial determinations made during the course of a litigation before final judgment is entered may have preclusive effect provided that the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the initial determination (see Marcus Dairy, Inc. v Jacene Realty Corp., 27 AD3d 427 [2006]). The issue raised by the appellants on this appeal is the same as that raised by them and addressed by this Court on a prior appeal, which was determined to be “without merit” (Matter of Sterngass v Town Bd. of Town of Clarkstown, 10 AD3d 402, 406 [2004]). Since the appellants had a full and fair opportunity to litigate this issue, they are precluded from relitigating it.

[1038]*1038Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants’ motion which was for leave to amend the complaints in action Nos. 1 and 2 (see Norwalk v Morgan & Co., 300 AD2d 373, 374 [2002]). Spolzino, J.E, Krausman, Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Lloyd v. Lloyd
2025 NY Slip Op 04776 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Nemeroff v. Hamptons Little Neck, LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 03435 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
American Home Mtge. Servicing, Inc. v. Arklis
2020 NY Slip Op 07527 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Fidler v. Gordon-Herricks Corp.
2019 NY Slip Op 4681 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Strough v. Incorporated Village of West Hampton Dunes
98 A.D.3d 607 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Ruffino v. Green
72 A.D.3d 785 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Baron v. Grant
48 A.D.3d 608 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 A.D.3d 1037, 841 N.Y.S.2d 453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sterngass-v-town-board-of-clarkstown-nyappdiv-2007.