RPG Consulting, Inc. v. Zormati, 82 A.D.3d 739 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
RPG Consulting, Inc. v. Zormati, 82 A.D.3d 739 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …necessarily resolved on the merits ✓
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …the doctrine 'applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in the prior decision,' and to the same questions presented in the same case at p. 740 ≈ altered
21 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Barzilay v. Hairline Ink, LLC (nysupctkings, 2025-04-17)
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Barzilay v. Hairline Ink, LLC
N.Y. Sup. Kings · 2025 · confidence medium
The doctrine "applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in [a] prior decision" ( Baldasano v Bank of NY , 199 AD2d 184, 185 [1993]; see Gay v Farella , 5 AD3d 540, 541 [2004]; Gilligan v Reers , 255 AD2d 486, 487 [1998]), "and to the same questions presented in the same case" ( RPG Consulting, Inc. v Zormati , 82 AD3d 739, 740 [2011], citing People v Evans , 94 NY2d 499, 502 [2000]). ( Erickson v Cross Ready Mix, Inc. , 98 AD3d 717 [2d Dept 2021]; see Wolf Props., Assoc., L.P. v Castle Restoration, LLC , 174 AD3d 838 [2d Dept 2019]; Strujan v Glencord Bl…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Barzilay v. Hairline Ink, LLC
N.Y. Sup. Kings · 2025 · confidence medium
The doctrine "applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in [a] prior decision" ( Baldasano v Bank of NY , 199 AD2d 184, 185 [1993]; see Gay v Farella , 5 AD3d 540, 541 [2004]; Gilligan v Reers , 255 AD2d 486, 487 [1998]), "and to the same questions presented in the same case" ( RPG Consulting, Inc. v Zormati , 82 AD3d 739, 740 [2011], citing People v Evans , 94 NY2d 499, 502 [2000]). ( Erickson v Cross Ready Mix, Inc. , 98 AD3d 717 [2d Dept 2021]; see Wolf Props., Assoc., L.P. v Castle Restoration, LLC , 174 AD3d 838 [2d Dept 2019]; Strujan v Glencord Bl…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Dorfman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
The doctrine of law of the case "applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in [a] prior decision, and to the same questions presented in the same case" ( RPG Consulting, Inc. v Zormati , 82 AD3d 739, 740 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Chung Li , 165 AD3d 1105 ; Ramanathan v Aharon , 109 AD3d 529, 530 ; Erickson v Cross Ready Mix, Inc. , 98 AD3d 717, 717 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Chung Li
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
"The doctrine applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in [a] prior decision, and to the same questions presented in the same case" ( RPG Consulting, Inc. v Zormati , 82 AD3d 739, 740 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Ramanathan v Aharon , 109 AD3d 529, 530 ; Erickson v Cross Ready Mix, Inc. , 98 AD3d 717, 717 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mosby v. Parilla
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
However, “[t]he doctrine [of law of the case] ‘applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in *1131 the prior decision,’ and to the same questions presented in the same case” (RPG Consulting, Inc. v Zormati, 82 AD3d 739, 740 [2011], quoting Gilligan v Reers, 255 AD2d 486, 487 [1998] [citation omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ramanathan v. Aharon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The doctrine “applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in [a] prior decision” (Baldasano v Bank of N.Y., 199 AD2d 184, 185 [1993]; see Gay v Farella, 5 AD3d 540, 541 [2004]; D’Amato v Access Mfg., 305 AD2d 447, 448 [2003]), “and to the same questions presented in the same case” (RPG Consulting, Inc. v Zormati, 82 AD3d 739, 740 [2011], citing People v Evans, 94 NY2d 499, 502 [2000]; see Matter of McGrath v Gold, 36 NY2d 406, 413 [1975]; Erickson v Cross Ready Mix, Inc., 98 AD3d 717 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ramanathan v. Aharon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The doctrine “applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in [a] prior decision” (Baldasano v Bank of N.Y., 199 AD2d 184, 185 [1993]; see Gay v Farella, 5 AD3d 540, 541 [2004]; D’Amato v Access Mfg., 305 AD2d 447, 448 [2003]), “and to the same questions presented in the same case” (RPG Consulting, Inc. v Zormati, 82 AD3d 739, 740 [2011], citing People v Evans, 94 NY2d 499, 502 [2000]; see Matter of McGrath v Gold, 36 NY2d 406, 413 [1975]; Erickson v Cross Ready Mix, Inc., 98 AD3d 717 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Erickson v. Cross Ready Mix, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The doctrine “applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in [a] prior decision” (Baldasano v Bank of N.Y., 199 AD2d 184, 185 [1993]; see Gay v Farella, 5 AD3d 540, 541 [2004]; Gilligan v Reers, 255 AD2d 486, 487 [1998]), “and to the same questions presented in the same case” (RPG Consulting, Inc. v Zormati, 82 AD3d 739, 740 [2011], citing People v Evans, 94 NY2d 499, 502 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Erickson v. Cross Ready Mix, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The doctrine “applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in [a] prior decision” (Baldasano v Bank of N.Y., 199 AD2d 184, 185 [1993]; see Gay v Farella, 5 AD3d 540, 541 [2004]; Gilligan v Reers, 255 AD2d 486, 487 [1998]), “and to the same questions presented in the same case” (RPG Consulting, Inc. v Zormati, 82 AD3d 739, 740 [2011], citing People v Evans, 94 NY2d 499, 502 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moran Enterprises, Inc. v. Hurst
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
“The doctrine ‘applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in the prior decision,’ and to the same questions presented in the same case” (RPG Consulting, Inc. v Zormati, 82 AD3d 739, 740 [2011], quoting Gilligan v Reers, 255 AD2d 486, 487 [1998] [citation omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moran Enterprises, Inc. v. Hurst
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
“The doctrine ‘applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in the prior decision,’ and to the same questions presented in the same case” (RPG Consulting, Inc. v Zormati, 82 AD3d 739, 740 [2011], quoting Gilligan v Reers, 255 AD2d 486, 487 [1998] [citation omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Glassman v. ProHealth Ambulatory Surgery Center, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Co., 93 NY2d 750, 754 [1999]; RPG Consulting, Inc. v Zormati, 82 AD3d 739, 740 [2011]), since they were previously determined by this Court (see Glassman v Pro Health Ambulatory Surgery Ctr., Inc., 55 AD3d 538 [2008], revd on other grounds 14 NY3d 898 [2010]), or without merit.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Glassman v. ProHealth Ambulatory Surgery Center, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Co., 93 NY2d 750, 754 [1999]; RPG Consulting, Inc. v Zormati, 82 AD3d 739, 740 [2011]), since they were previously determined by this Court (see Glassman v Pro Health Ambulatory Surgery Ctr., Inc., 55 AD3d 538 [2008], revd on other grounds 14 NY3d 898 [2010]), or without merit.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roldan v. Astoria Generating Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
The trial court properly rejected Con Edison’s arguments at trial that Astoria and Orion must indemnify it pursuant to Section 2.02 of a contract between Con Edison and Astoria, dated March 2, 1999, and entitled “Astoria Continuing Site Agreement.” The argument was rejected in connection with Astoria and Orion’s summary judgment motion prior to trial, and that determination became the law of the case (see Martin v City of Cohoes, 37 NY2d 162, 165 [1975]; RPG Consulting, Inc. v Zormati, 82 AD3d 739, 740 [2011]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
RPG Consulting, Inc.
v.
Bedis Zormati
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 1, 2011.
82 A.D.3d 739
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published

The defendant appealed from a prior order of the Supreme[*740] Court, Westchester County, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint. That appeal was dismissed by decision and order on motion of this Court dated April 2, 2007, for failure to timely perfect in accordance with the Court rules. The defendant also appealed from a subsequent order of the Supreme Court issued in connection with the defendant’s motion “to vacate [the judgment] pursuant to CPLR 5015, subdivision (a), paragraph (3).” However, that appeal was dismissed by decision and order on motion of this Court dated August 13, 2007, again for failure to timely perfect in accordance with the Court rules.

Under the circumstances, the doctrine of law of the case requires that we affirm the order dated October 26, 2009, insofar as appealed from. The law of the case doctrine “is a rule of practice, an articulation of sound policy that, when an issue is once judicially determined, that should be the end of the matter as far as Judges and courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction are concerned” (Martin v City of Cohoes, 37 NY2d 162, 165 [1975]). The doctrine “applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in the prior decision” (Gilligan v Reers, 255 AD2d 486, 487 [1998] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Baldasano v Bank of N.Y., 199 AD2d 184, 185 [1993]), and to the same questions presented in the same case (see People v Evans, 94 NY2d 499, 502 [2000]; cf. Tillman v Women's Christian Assn. Hosp., 272 AD2d 979 [2000]; Castle v Gaseteria Oil Corp., 263 AD2d 523, 523-524 [1999]). This Court’s dismissal of the defendant’s prior appeals constituted a determination on the merits (see Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 NY2d 750, 754 [1999]). The issues raised on those prior appeals and the issue raised on the present appeal relate to the same questions presented in the same case. Accordingly the doctrine of law of the case applies, and the order must be affirmed insofar as appealed from (see Matter of Oyster Bay Assoc. Ltd. Partnership v Town Bd. of Town of Oyster Bay, 21 AD3d 964, 966 [2005]). Mastro, J.E, Dickerson, Eng and Lott, JJ., concur.