Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. North Shore Signature Homes, Inc., 125 A.D.3d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). · Go Syfert
Search
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. North Shore Signature Homes, Inc., 125 A.D.3d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cotto v. Robinson (nyappdiv, 2025-12-31)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cotto v. Robinson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
Although this Court is not bound by the law of the case doctrine and may make its own determination ( see Irizarry v Rosselli , 229 AD3d 778, 780; Vehifax Corp. v Georgilis , 205 AD3d 973, 975-976), under the circumstances of this case, we decline to exercise our discretion to consider the plaintiff's contentions regarding the ELRAC defendants' entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them on the merits ( see Matter of Simpson v Cyrius , 220 AD3d 708, 709; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v North Shore Signature Homes, Inc. , 125 AD3d 7…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fleurant
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Servs., Inc. v 83-17 Broadway Corp., 126 AD3d 752, 754-755 [2015]; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v North Shore Signature Homes, Inc., 125 AD3d 799, 800 [2015]; Romagnolo v Pandolfini, 75 AD3d 632, 634 [2010]), the defendant’s contentions are without merit.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Brown-Jodoin v. Pirrotti
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Agency, Inc., 131 AD3d 610, 612 [2015]; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v North Shore Signature Homes, Inc., 125 AD3d 799, 800 [2015]; see also Siegel, NY Prac § 276 [5th ed 2011]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." D.K. v. M.T.K.
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low
(See Luna Light., Inc. v Just Indus., Inc., 137 AD3d 1228 [2d Dept 2016]; see also Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v North Shore Signature Homes, Inc., 125 AD3d 799 [2d Dept 2015].) Therefore, if this postjudgment application is construed to simply be an extension of the underlying divorce, the defendant is precluded from offering evidence in relation to his finances.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, Subscribing to Policy No. APH 0100472, as Subrogee of Tal and Aharon Philipson, Respondent,
v.
North Shore Signature Homes, Inc., Et Al., Appellants. (Action No. 1.); State Farm Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Marilyn M. Salierno, Plaintiff, v. North Shore Signature Homes, Inc., Et Al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.) (Action No. 2.)
2012-11435.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 18, 2015.
125 A.D.3d 799
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

In related subrogation actions to recover benefits paid to the plaintiffs’ insureds, the defendant Richard Wischhusen appeals, and the defendant North Shore Signature Homes, Inc., separately appeals, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jaeger, J.), entered October 16, 2012,[*800] as granted that branch of the motion of the plaintiff in action No. 1 which was pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a) for a protective order preventing the disclosure of its insurance coverage file referable to the underlying property damage claim, and denied those branches of those defendants’ respective cross motions which were pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the disclosure of that file.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the contention of the defendants Richard Wischhusen and North Shore Signature Homes, Inc. (hereinafter North Shore), the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the plaintiff insurer in action No. 1 which was for a protective order preventing the disclosure of its insurance coverage file referable to the underlying property damage claim, and properly denied those branches of their respective cross motions which were to compel disclosure of that file. In reaching its conclusions, the Supreme Court properly applied the law of the case doctrine, since, in an order dated May 24, 2011, from which Wischhusen and North Shore did not appeal, the court had already determined that the disputed file was not discoverable (see Martin v City of Cohoes, 37 NY2d 162, 165 [1975]; Erickson v Cross Ready Mix, Inc., 98 AD3d 717 [2012]). Although the law of the case doctrine does not bind an appellate court to a determination of a nisi prius court (see Latture v Smith, 304 AD2d 534, 535 [2003]), we decline to exercise our discretion to consider the contentions of Wischhusen and North Shore on the merits (see Grossman v Team Care Home Care Agency, Inc., 14 AD3d 652 [2005]; Avid Equities v Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co., 225 AD2d 446 [1996]; Haibi v Haibi, 171 AD2d 842, 843 [1991]; Baron v Baron, 128 AD2d 821, 822 [1987]).

Dillon, J.P, Leventhal, Chambers and Duffy, JJ., concur.