Opinion
March 9, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The issues raised with respect to the Labor Law § 240 cause of action have been considered by this Court in a previous appeal ( see, Robertti v. Chang, 227 A.D.2d 542), and that decision and order constitutes the law of the case ( see, Lattanzi v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., 240 A.D.2d 475; Vedic Heritage v. Patel, 232 A.D.2d 477). The issue raised with respect to the Labor Law § 241 (4) cause of action does not appear to have been raised on the previous appeal. However, the third-party defendant's contention with regard to this statutory provision is without merit.
Contrary to the plaintiff-respondent's contention, an award of sanctions is unwarranted in this case.
Thompson, J. P., Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.