Opinion
02-17-2016
Murray BREIDBART, et al., plaintiffs, v. Melvin L. WIESENTHAL, et al., defendants, Cornell Holding Corp., appellant, Albob Associates, etc., et al., respondents.
Stanley N. Futterman, New York, NY, for appellant. Cullen and Dykman, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Cynthia Boyer Okrent of counsel), for respondents.
Stanley N. Futterman, New York, NY, for appellant.
Cullen and Dykman, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Cynthia Boyer Okrent of counsel), for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to compel partnership accountings and a distribution of partnership assets, the defendant Cornell Holding Corp. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated January 8, 2014, as denied its motion to compel the defendants Albob Associates, Brooklawn Associates, and Samuel Goldstein to account for the gain on the sale of the real property of Albob Associates.ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
As a general rule, the doctrine of law of the case precludes this Court from reexamining an issue which has been raised and decided against a party or those in privity with that party on a prior appeal absent a showing of subsequent evidence or a change in law (see Matter of Fulmer v. Buxenbaum, 109 A.D.3d 822, 823, 971 N.Y.S.2d 61 ; Allison v. Allison, 60 A.D.3d 711, 711, 876 N.Y.S.2d 68 ; Briggs v. Chapman, 53 A.D.3d 900, 901, 863 N.Y.S.2d 97 ; J–Mar Serv. Ctr., Inc. v. Mahoney, Connor & Hussey, 45 A.D.3d 809, 810, 847 N.Y.S.2d 130 ). On a prior appeal (see Breidbart v. Wiesenthal, 108 A.D.3d 492, 969 N.Y.S.2d 89 ), this Court determined that representatives of the retired/deceased partner were not entitled to share in the appreciation of partnership assets after the date of dissolution of the partnerships, i.e., the gain on the sale of commercial real estate sold after the date of dissolution. On this appeal, the defendant Cornell Holding Corp. has not demonstrated new factual circumstances or a change in the law which would warrant our reconsideration of this issue (see Briggs v. Chapman, 53 A.D.3d at 901–902, 863 N.Y.S.2d 97 ; see also York v. York, 98 A.D.3d 1042, 1042–1043, 950 N.Y.S.2d 592 ; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Grant, 88 A.D.3d 929, 929, 931 N.Y.S.2d 523 ; Cinelli Bldrs., Inc. v. Ferris, 78 A.D.3d 881, 882, 911 N.Y.S.2d 446 ; Frankson v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 67 A.D.3d 213, 217–218, 886 N.Y.S.2d 714 ).
DICKERSON, J.P., HALL, ROMAN and DUFFY, JJ., concur.