G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
…precludes parties or their privies from relitigating an issue that has already been decided.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2015 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2015
2020
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Barbero v. CSX Transp.
Accordingly, the parties did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the merits of this per se violation argument in the previous preclusion motion and the law of the case doctrine did not bar Supreme Court from addressing it in defendant's summary judgment motion ( see Karol v Polsinello , 127 AD3d at 1403; Chanice v Federal Express Corp. , 118 AD3d 634, 635 [1st Dept 2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Barbero v. CSX Transp.
Accordingly, the parties did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the merits of this per se violation argument in the previous preclusion motion and the law of the case doctrine did not bar Supreme Court from addressing it in defendant's summary judgment motion ( see Karol v Polsinello , 127 AD3d at 1403; Chanice v Federal Express Corp. , 118 AD3d 634, 635 [1st Dept 2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Tiburcio
(2×)
Accordingly, the summary judgment order remains law of the case ( see Chanice v Federal Express Corp. , 118 AD3d 634, 635 [1st Dept 2014]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Mandracchia
Corp. , 118 AD3d 634, 635, 989 N.Y.S.2d 468, 469 (1st Dept. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
J.O. v. LA Fitness Intl., LLC
(2×)
"When applied, the [law of the case] doctrine precludes parties or their privies from relitigating an issue that has already been decided" ( Chanice v Federal Express Corp. , 118 AD3d 634, 635 [1st Dept 2014]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rohan 573 W 161 St LLC v. Feldman
It "contemplates that the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate when the initial determination was made" (~hanice, 118 AD3d at 635; People v Evans, 94 NY2d 499 [2000]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Santiago v. General Motors LLC
Nor would the factual findings challenged by Van Gaasbeck be binding in the plenary action under the law of the case doctrine ( see generally Matter of McGrath v Gold , 36 NY2d 406, 413 [1975]; Matter of Village of Endicott [Village of Endicott Police Benevolent Assn., Inc.] , 182 AD3d 738, 740 [3d Dept 2020]; Fidler v Gordon-Herricks Corp. , 173 AD3d 840 , 841 [2d Dept 2019]; Chanice v Federal Express Corp. , 118 AD3d 634, 635 [1st Dept 2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vardouniotis v. Pfizer, Inc.
Under the doctrine of law of the case, if the parties had a “a full and fair opportunity to litigate when the initial determination was made,” they are precluded “from relitigating an issue that has already been decided.” Chanice v Federal Express Corp., 118 AD3d 634, 635 (1st Dept. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Board of Mgrs. of the Plaza Condominium v. New York City Dept. of Transp.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the municipal respon- *420 dents properly examined the citywide program as a whole because individual review could fail to disclose the overall impact of the program (see City Environmental Quality Review Technical Manual at 2-2 to 2-3; Matter of Cambridge Owners Corp., 118 AD3d at 634).
discussed
Cited "see"
Aspen Specialty Ins. Co. v. RLI Ins. Co., Inc.
It applies to prevent the "parties or those in privity" from relitigating "an issue decided in an ongoing action where there previously was a full and fair opportunity [*5]to address the issue" ( Matter of Goldstein v Zabel , 146 AD3d 624 , 631 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 918 [2017]; see Chanice v Federal Express Corp., 118 AD3d 634, 635 [1st Dept 2014] [since FedEx was not a party at the time that the plaintiff moved to amend the complaint, it was not precluded from moving to dismiss the claims asserted in the amended complaint]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Cambridge Owners Corp.
v.
New York City Department of Transportation
v.
New York City Department of Transportation
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 26, 2014.
Degrasse, Kapnick, Moskowitz, Tom.
Published
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered October 30, 2013, denying the petition for, among other things, a declaration that respondent Department of Transportation’s determination to install a City Bike Share station in front of petitioner’s building was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of respondent’s legal duties under the City Environmental Quality Review Act, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court correctly found that respondent’s determination to install a bike share station in front of petitioner’s building was issued after a sufficient environmental review of the bike share program, was consistent with the siting guidelines identified by respondent, and had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods. v Town of Sardinia, 87 NY2d 668, 688 [1996]; Matter of Chinese Staff & Workers’ Assn. v Burden, 88 AD3d 425 [1st Dept 2011], affd 19 NY3d 922 [2012]).
Concur—Tom, J.E, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Kapnick, JJ.