From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hall v. Cucco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 22, 2004
5 A.D.3d 631 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2002-11393, 2003-04004.

Decided March 22, 2004.

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 plaintiff's motion to preliminarily 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.

Windels Marx Lane Mittendorf, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Mark Slama of counsel), for appellant.

Hall Hall, LLP, Staten Island, N.Y. (Allyn J. Crawford of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, HOWARD MILLER, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

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

On a prior appeal, this court determined that the plaintiff's only cause of action sounds in quantum meruit ( see Hall v. Cucco, 294 A.D.2d 332). 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 A.D.2d 403). Thus, the plaintiff's 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 plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction ( see Credit Agricole Indosvez v. Rossiyskiy Kredit Bank, 94 N.Y.2d 541).

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.


Summaries of

Hall v. Cucco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 22, 2004
5 A.D.3d 631 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Hall v. Cucco

Case Details

Full title:JOHN G. HALL, respondent, v. LUCILLE CUCCO, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 22, 2004

Citations

5 A.D.3d 631 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
774 N.Y.S.2d 770

Citing Cases

State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Sparacio

ard of Assessors of Nassau County, supra at 555; see Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of…

Selinger v. Carsel Realty Corp.

A preliminary injunction is not warranted when there is an adequate remedy at law (see Famo, Inc. v Green 521…