Opinion
05-09-2024
Maktumma TESHABAEVA, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. FAMILY HOME CARE SERVICES OF BROOKLYN AND QUEENS, INC., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Ford Harrison LLP, New York (Richard Bahrenburg of counsel), for appellants. Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, New York (LaDonna M. Lusher of counsel), for respondents.
Ford Harrison LLP, New York (Richard Bahrenburg of counsel), for appellants.
Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, New York (LaDonna M. Lusher of counsel), for respondents.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Singh, Kapnick, Gesmer, Rodriguez, JJ. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Latin, J.), entered December 21, 2022, which, insofar as appealed from, in this class action, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs, and defendants sanctioned (22 NYCRR 130–1.3) in the amount of $10,000, payable to the Clerk of Supreme Court, New York County, for transmittal to the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance.
This is defendants’ fourth appeal to this Court, in which they raise the same issues that they have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in their three prior appeals. We find that the law of the case doctrine applies to the instant matter as this Court has expressly and unambiguously rejected defendants’ preemption, res judicata, and jurisdictional arguments on three occasions (see 220 A.D.3d 519, 198 N.Y.S.3d 24 [1st Dept. 2023]; 214 A.D.3d 442, 186 N.Y.S.3d 123 [1st Dept. 2023]; 198 A.D.3d 500, 156 N.Y.S.3d 21 [1st Dept. 2021], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 902, 2022 WL 806671 [2022], appeal dismissed 38 N.Y.3d 945, 165 N.Y.S.3d 26, 185 N.E.3d 508 [2022]). The law of the case doctrine "is a rule of practice premised upon a sound policy that once an issue is judicially determined, further litigation of that tissue should be precluded in a particular case" (Matter of Part 60 RMBS Put–Back Litig., 195 A.D.3d 40, 47, 146 N.Y.S.3d 109 [1st Dept. 2021]). "It applies to prevent the parties or those in privity from relitigating an issue decide in an ongoing action where there previously was a full and fair opportunity to address the issue" (Aspen Specialty Ins. Co. v. RLI Ins. Co., Inc., 194 A.D.3d 206, 212, 145 N.Y.S.3d 50 [1st Dept. 2021] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Defendants have not demonstrated that subsequent evidence or a change in law warrants a different result (see NAMA Holdings, LLC v. Greenberg Traurig LLP, 92 A.D.3d 614, 614, 939 N.Y.S.2d 53 [1st Dept. 2012]).
Given the above, we conclude that defendants’ appeal from the motion court’s order was frivolous, and therefore, in the exercise of discretion, impose frivolous appeal sanctions (22 NYCRR 130–1.3) against defendants of $10,000, payable to the Clerk of the Court for transmittal to the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance (see e.g. Matter of Del Monaco v. Diamond, 162 A.D.3d 561, 80 N.Y.S.3d 17 [1st Dept. 2018]).