Suzuki-Peters v. Peters, 37 A.D.3d 726 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
Suzuki-Peters v. Peters, 37 A.D.3d 726 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · …were previously raised and decided against her or could have been raised on a prior appeal in this matter . . . 'therefore, reconsideration of these contentions is barred by the doctrine of law of the case ≈ altered
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Hock v. Brennan (nyappdiv, 2013-06-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hock v. Brennan
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Since the petitioner effected service only upon the Attorney General and did not personally serve the respondent Justice Michael Brennan, personal jurisdiction over Justice Brennan was not obtained, and the proceeding must, therefore, be dismissed (see CPLR 7804 [c]; Matter of Thurston v Annetts, 37 AD3d 726, 727 [2007]; Matter of Conciatori v Office of Secretary of State, 15 AD3d 397, 398 [2005]; Matter of S&S Grocery of NY Corp. v Novello, 12 AD3d 448, 449 [2004]; Matter of Lothrop v Edelstein, 112 AD2d 433, 434 [1985]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hock v. Brennan
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Since the petitioner effected service only upon the Attorney General and did not personally serve the respondent Justice Michael Brennan, personal jurisdiction over Justice Brennan was not obtained, and the proceeding must, therefore, be dismissed (see CPLR 7804 [c]; Matter of Thurston v Annetts, 37 AD3d 726, 727 [2007]; Matter of Conciatori v Office of Secretary of State, 15 AD3d 397, 398 [2005]; Matter of S&S Grocery of NY Corp. v Novello, 12 AD3d 448, 449 [2004]; Matter of Lothrop v Edelstein, 112 AD2d 433, 434 [1985]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moran Enterprises, Inc. v. Hurst
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
It bars reconsideration of issues which were raised and determined against a party or which could have been raised on a prior appeal (s ee Matter of Ise-Smith v Orok-Edem, 55 AD3d 610, 610 [2008]; Matter of Suzuki-Peters v Peters, 37 AD3d 726, 726 [2007]; Palumbo v Palumbo, 10 AD3d 680, 682 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moran Enterprises, Inc. v. Hurst
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
It bars reconsideration of issues which were raised and determined against a party or which could have been raised on a prior appeal (s ee Matter of Ise-Smith v Orok-Edem, 55 AD3d 610, 610 [2008]; Matter of Suzuki-Peters v Peters, 37 AD3d 726, 726 [2007]; Palumbo v Palumbo, 10 AD3d 680, 682 [2004]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Itoko Suzuki-Peters
v.
Arnold Peters
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 20, 2007.
37 A.D.3d 726
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Davidson, J.), dated March 22, 2006, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Kava, H.E.) dated August 17, 2005, which, in effect, denied his motion, inter alia, to vacate a prior order of the same court dated April 20, 2005, directing the release of certain escrow funds to the Westchester County Support Collection Unit, among other things, to pay child support arrears.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father’s contentions, his objections to the order dated August 17, 2005 were properly denied by the Family Court, but for a reason different from that articulated by the Family Court. The father’s contentions, as raised in his objections, were previously raised and decided against him or could have been raised on a prior appeal in this matter (see Matter of Suzuki v Peters, 12 AD3d 612 [2004]). “Therefore, reconsideration of these issues is barred by the doctrine of law of the case” (Palumbo v Palumbo, 10 AD3d 680, 682 [2004]; see Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 18 AD3d 551 [2005], affd 7 NY3d 320 [2006] ). Mastro, J.P, Goldstein, Lifson and Garni, JJ., concur.