Opinion
12-06-2016
Stephane Cosman CONNERY, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. Burton S. SULTAN, Defendant–Appellant.
Burton S. Sultan, appellant pro se. Jacobs & Burleigh, LLP, New York (Arthur J. Jacobs of counsel), for respondents.
Burton S. Sultan, appellant pro se.
Jacobs & Burleigh, LLP, New York (Arthur J. Jacobs of counsel), for respondents.
RENWICK, J.P., SAXE, GISCHE, WEBBER, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered April 26, 2016, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs' motion to direct the Department of Finance to turn over to plaintiffs funds that defendant had deposited to stay the enforcement of a judgment, and denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Defendant's argument that the motion court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the stipulation of settlement is barred by the doctrine of law of the case (see Jacoby & Meyers, LLP v. Flomenhaft, 137 A.D.3d 547, 26 N.Y.S.3d 848 [1st Dept.2016] ). In a prior appeal, this Court concluded that the court had jurisdiction (Connery v. Sultan, 126 A.D.3d 525, 2 N.Y.S.3d 894 [1st Dept.2015], lv. dismissed 26 N.Y.3d 991, 19 N.Y.S.3d 212, 41 N.E.3d 69 [2015] ). The documents upon which defendant now claims to rely in support of this argument do not establish the existence of a fully executed stipulation of discontinuance, and, in any event, were in defendant's possession at the time of the prior appeal. Given that, as the motion court observed, both sides in this long and contentious litigation have pursued aggressive tactics and maintained conflicting positions, we conclude that sanctions against defendant are not appropriate.