law of the case doctrine in New York

2026While it is true that the law-of-the-case doctrine bars re-litigation of legal determinations previously resolved in the same action, it does not constitute an inflexible prohibition against renewed motions where new evidence has emerged or the record has evolved meaningfully ( see Martin v City of Cohoes , 37 NY2d 162, 165 [1975]; Pahl Equip.

2026While it is true that the law-of-the-case doctrine bars re-litigation of legal determinations previously resolved in the same action, it does not constitute an inflexible prohibition against renewed motions where new evidence has emerged or the record has evolved meaningfully ( see Martin v City of Cohoes , 37 NY2d 162, 165 [1975]; Pahl Equip.

2026As such, law of the case is necessarily '·amorphous·' in that it ''directs a court's discretion,'' but does not restrict its authority:· People v Emns. 94 NY2d 499 . 503 [2000] "The law of the case 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 ..

2026NO. 132 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2026 actually decided in order to pose a bar in a later proceeding."][ emphasis added]; Brown v State, 250 AD2d 314,320 [3d Dept 1998][emphasis added][''It applies "rw]here a court directly passes upon an issue which is necessarily involved in the final determination on the merits"][emphasis added]; Holt v Tioga County, 95 AD2d 934, 935 [3d Dept l 983]["we note that since neither ,ve nor the Court of Appeals expressly addressed these particular [] claims earlier, the doctrine of law of the case does not hinder our consideration of them now"] [emphasis added]; Peo

2018Even if the Court of Appeals' prior determination is viewed as addressing the contractual issue, "while the law of the case doctrine is intended to foster orderly convenience' . . ., it is not an absolute mandate which limits an appellate court's power to reconsider issues where there are extraordinary circumstances, such as subsequent evidence affecting the prior determination or a change of law'" ( Frankson v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. , 67 AD3d 213, 218 [2d Dept 2009]; see also Foley v Roche, 86 AD2d 887, 887 [1982], lv denied 56 NY2d 507 [1982] [holding that where the basis for a pri

2018Even if the Court of Appeals' prior determination is viewed as addressing the contractual issue, "while the law of the case doctrine is intended to foster orderly convenience' . . ., it is not an absolute mandate which limits an appellate court's power to reconsider issues where there are extraordinary circumstances, such as subsequent evidence affecting the prior determination or a change of law'" ( Frankson v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. , 67 AD3d 213, 218 [2d Dept 2009]; see also Foley v Roche, 86 AD2d 887, 887 [1982], lv denied 56 NY2d 507 [1982] [holding that where the basis for a pri

2026This Court did not reach those substantive issues, and the doctrine of the law of the case applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in the prior decision ( see Baldasano v Bank of NY , 199 AD2d 184, 185 [1st Dept 1993]).

2021That doctrine applies to judicial determinations of law ( see Baldasano v Bank of N.Y. , 199 AD2d 184, 185 [1st Dept 1993] ["the doctrine of the law of the case applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in the prior decision"]).

2022It would have been unnecessary to grant leave to amend the defendants' answer to interpose the law of the case doctrine ( see generally Bloom v Lugli , 102 AD3d 715, 718 ), as that doctrine constitutes a "rule of practice" rather than an affirmative defense ( Martin v City of Cohoes , 37 NY2d 162, 165 ; see Matter of Part 60 RMBS Put-Back Litig. , 195 AD3d 40, 47-48 ; Ramanathan v Aharon , 109 AD3d 529, 530 ).

2022The law of the case doctrine is a rule of practice that applies to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in the prior decision, and to the same questions presented in the same case ( see Ramanathan v Aharon , 109 AD3d 529, 530 ).

2024As such, the argument is barred by the doctrine of law of the case ( see Carmona v Mathisson , 92 AD3d 492 , 492—493 [1st Dept 2012]).

2024As such, the argument is barred by the doctrine of law of the case ( see Carmona v Mathisson , 92 AD3d 492 , 492—493 [1st Dept 2012]).

2019Although this Court is not bound by the Supreme Court's prior determination pursuant to the law of the case doctrine, under the circumstances presented here, no basis exists to disturb the court's invocation of that doctrine ( see Maragliano v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. , 119 AD3d 534, 536 ; Romagnolo v Pandolfini , 75 AD3d 632, 634 ).

2018Contrary to the plaintiffs' contentions, the Supreme Court properly determined that, pursuant to the law of the case doctrine, it was appropriate to grant KCPA's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it ( see Salvaggio v American Express Bank, FSB , 129 AD3d 816, 817 ; Maragliano v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. , 119 AD3d 534, 536 ; Romagnolo v Pandolfini , 75 AD3d 632, 634 ).

2024Thus, the order denying the motion to vacate the custody order, without holding a hearing, constitutes a violation of the law of the case doctrine[*2], and the order should be reversed on that basis alone ( see Post v Post , 141 AD2d 518, 519 [2d Dept 1988]).

2024Thus, the order denying the motion to vacate the custody order, without holding a hearing, constitutes a violation of the law of the case doctrine[*2], and the order should be reversed on that basis alone ( see Post v Post , 141 AD2d 518, 519 [2d Dept 1988]).

2016Moreover, the Family Court’s award of attorney’s fees was not barred by the doctrine of law of the case (see Erickson v Cross Ready Mix, Inc., 98 AD3d 717 [2012]; Gilligan v Reers, 255 AD2d 486 , 487 *651 [1998]).

2005Moreover, since the issue of the appellant’s liability to the plaintiff under the Labor Law was not fully litigated before the filing of the plaintiffs motion, the doctrine of law of the case doctrine did not apply (see People v Evans, 94 NY2d 499, 502 [2000]; Engel v Eichler, 300 AD2d 622, 623 [2002]; see also Gilligan v Reers, 255 AD2d 486, 487 [1998]).

2016The plaintiff’s contention that the law of the case doctrine precluded the Supreme Court from granting the defendant’s motion is without merit (see Donahue v Nassau County Healthcare Corp., 15 AD3d 332, 333 [2005]; see also Lehman v North Greenwich Landscaping, LLC, 65 AD3d 1293, 1294 [2009]).

2013Thus, the arguments raised on this appeal by Maureen Page, the designated beneficiary of the decedent’s NYCERS pension plan, that the survivor benefits of the decedent’s NYCERS pension plan are not subject to Nevada law, and alternatively, that the survivor benefits of the decedent’s NYCERS pension plan are not considered community property under Nevada law, are barred by the law of the case doctrine (see South Point, Inc. v Redman, 94 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2012]; Lehman v North Greenwich Landscaping, LLC, 65 AD3d 1293, 1294 [2009]).

2026To the extent that JCI's motion sought relief pursuant to the doctrine of the law of the case, JCI similarly failed to show the applicability of that doctrine for the same reason ( see U.S. Bank N.A. v Moss , 186 AD3d 1753, 1753 ; Erickson v Cross Ready Mix, Inc. , 98 AD3d 717 , 717).

2025Lastly, the doctrine of law of the case 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." Erickson v Cross Ready Mix, Inc. 98 AD3d 717, 717 (2d Dept 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2025As defendant points out, the law of the case doctrine does not apply here because “it applies to various stages of the same litigation and not to different litigations” (McGrath v Gold, 36 NY2d 406, 413 [1975] [emphasis added]).

2024Nor 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]).

2025Further, the law of the case doctrine tells us "...a court should not ordinarily reconsider, disturb or overrule an order in the same action of another court of co-ordinate jurisdiction." Matter of Dondi v. Jones , 40 NY2d 8, 15, 386 N.Y.S.2d 4, 351 N.E.2d 650 (1976); see also Martin v. City of Cohoes , 37 NY2d, at 165, 371 N.Y.S.2d 687, 332 N.E.2d 867 (1975).

2025Further, the law of the case doctrine tells us "...a court should not ordinarily reconsider, disturb or overrule an order in the same action of another court of co-ordinate jurisdiction." Matter of Dondi v. Jones , 40 NY2d 8, 15, 386 N.Y.S.2d 4, 351 N.E.2d 650 (1976); see also Martin v. City of Cohoes , 37 NY2d, at 165, 371 N.Y.S.2d 687, 332 N.E.2d 867 (1975).

2022Farms, Inc. v Flower & Medalie , 40 AD3d 699, 701 [2007]).

2021Farms, Inc. v Flower & Medalie , 40 AD3d 699 [2007]).

2012Plaintiff’s contentions concerning retroactive support “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’ ” (Matter of Suzuki-Peters v Peters, 37 AD3d 726 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 814 [2007], quoting Palumbo v Palumbo, 10 AD3d 680, 682 [2004], lv dismissed 3 NY3d 765 [2004]).

2012Plaintiff’s contentions concerning retroactive support “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’ ” (Matter of Suzuki-Peters v Peters, 37 AD3d 726 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 814 [2007], quoting Palumbo v Palumbo, 10 AD3d 680, 682 [2004], lv dismissed 3 NY3d 765 [2004]).

2019Additionally, the CWB records were not admissible under the law of the case doctrine as Surrogate's Court (Work, S.) never rendered a determination as to the admissibility of the subject records when it ordered that a trial be held on the issue of abandonment ( see Karol v Polsinello , 127 AD3d 1401, 1402-1403 [2015]; Scofield v Trustees of Union Coll. , 288 AD2d 807, 808 [2001]).

2014Mechanically the law of the case doctrine is similar to collateral estoppel, in that both require that an issue have been actually decided in order to pose a bar in a later proceeding (see Scofield v Trustees of Union Coll., 288 AD2d 807, 808 [3d Dept 2001]).

2018Even if the Court of Appeals' prior determination is viewed as addressing the contractual issue, "while the law of the case doctrine is intended to foster orderly convenience' . . ., it is not an absolute mandate which limits an appellate court's power to reconsider issues where there are extraordinary circumstances, such as subsequent evidence affecting the prior determination or a change of law'" ( Frankson v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. , 67 AD3d 213, 218 [2d Dept 2009]; see also Foley v Roche, 86 AD2d 887, 887 [1982], lv denied 56 NY2d 507 [1982] [holding that where the basis for a pri

2018Even if the Court of Appeals' prior determination is viewed as addressing the contractual issue, "while the law of the case doctrine is intended to foster orderly convenience' . . ., it is not an absolute mandate which limits an appellate court's power to reconsider issues where there are extraordinary circumstances, such as subsequent evidence affecting the prior determination or a change of law'" ( Frankson v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. , 67 AD3d 213, 218 [2d Dept 2009]; see also Foley v Roche, 86 AD2d 887, 887 [1982], lv denied 56 NY2d 507 [1982] [holding that where the basis for a pri

2024The doctrine of the law of the case does not bind an appellate court ( see Brown-Jodoin v Pirrotti , 138 AD3d 661, 663 ; Latture v Smith , 304 AD2d 534, 535 ).

2017The plaintiff’s contention that, by granting Montalvo’s trial motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the trial court violated the law of the case doctrine or otherwise improperly disre *886 garded this Court’s most recent decision and order in this matter, is without merit (see generally Bukowski v Clarkson Univ., 86 AD3d 736 [2011], affd 19 NY3d 353 [2012]; Latture v Smith, 304 AD2d 534, 535 [2003]).

2025Furthermore, while the doctrine of law of the case precluded the Supreme Court from reconsidering the merits of these issues, this Court is not bound under the doctrine of law of the case by a prior determination of the Supreme Court ( see Mosher-Simons v County of Allegany , 99 NY2d 214, 218-219 ; U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Longo , 227 AD3d 1122 , 1123; Deutsche Bank Natl.

2022Although this Court is not bound by the law of the case doctrine and may consider the defendant's contentions ( see Mosher-Simons v County of Allegany , 99 NY2d 214, 218-219 ; US Bank N.A. v Oliver , 180 AD3d 843, 844 ), we decline to disturb the Supreme Court's determination ( see Debcon Fin.

2021Contrary to the People's contention, this Court's prior decision was not based in "'manifest error,'" nor do "'exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine'" ( People v Baker , 139 AD3d 1078, 1079 , quoting People v Martinez , 194 AD2d 741, 741-742 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Barnes , 155 AD2d 468, 469 ).

2016However, this Court’s rejection of the defendant’s claim on her prior appeal (see People v Baker, 104 AD3d 783, 784 [2013]) “constitutes the law of the case, and, absent a showing of ‘manifest error’ in the prior decision or that ‘exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine’, the defendant is precluded from having this issue reconsidered” (People v Martinez, 194 AD2d 741, 741-742 [1993], quoting People v Barnes, 155 AD2d 468, 469 [1989]; see People v Riley, 22 AD3d 609, 610 [2005]; People v Taylor, 87 AD2d 771, 772 [1982], affd 57 NY2d 729 [1982]).

2026NO. 132 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2026 actually decided in order to pose a bar in a later proceeding."][ emphasis added]; Brown v State, 250 AD2d 314,320 [3d Dept 1998][emphasis added][''It applies "rw]here a court directly passes upon an issue which is necessarily involved in the final determination on the merits"][emphasis added]; Holt v Tioga County, 95 AD2d 934, 935 [3d Dept l 983]["we note that since neither ,ve nor the Court of Appeals expressly addressed these particular [] claims earlier, the doctrine of law of the case does not hinder our consideration of them now"] [emphasis added]; Peo

2010Inasmuch as Supreme Court (Dawson, J.) had previously determined that res ipsa loquitur was available to plaintiffs and no appeal was taken from that legal determination, the doctrine of law of the case should have been applied to give it preclusive effect at the time of trial (see Briggs v Chapman, 53 AD3d 900, 902 [2008]; Anderson v Anderson, 5 AD3d 1105, 1106 [2004]; Brown v State of New York, 250 AD2d 314, 320 [1998]; 28 NY Jur 2d Courts and Judges § 236).

2019The 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 ).

2019Therefore, pursuant to the doctrine of law of the case ( see RPG Consulting, Inc. v Zormati , 82 AD3d 739, 740 ), the court was precluded from reconsidering the issue on the plaintiff's motion to confirm the referee's report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale ( see Thomas v Dietrick , 284 AD2d 325, 325 ).

2025"The law of the case 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" ( id. [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Erickson v Cross Ready Mix, Inc. , 98 AD3d 717, 717 ).

2025"The law of the case 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" ( id. [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Erickson v Cross Ready Mix, Inc. , 98 AD3d 717, 717).

2025As previously discussed, I do not believe that our rejection of defendants' argument against the Attorney General's standing on the appeal from the denial of the motion to dismiss binds us, as law of the case, on this subsequent appeal from the final judgment entered upon a fully developed record that fails to disclose any public purpose served by this litigation ( see Chrystie LLC v LeDoux , 82 AD3d 681, 682 [1st Dept 2011] ["The law of the case doctrine is inapplicable where . . . a summary judgment motion follows a motion to dismiss"] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2025As previously discussed, I do not believe that our rejection of defendants' argument against the Attorney General's standing on the appeal from the denial of the motion to dismiss binds us, as law of the case, on this subsequent appeal from the final judgment entered upon a fully developed record that fails to disclose any public purpose served by this litigation ( see Chrystie LLC v LeDoux , 82 AD3d 681, 682 [1st Dept 2011] ["The law of the case doctrine is inapplicable where . . . a summary judgment motion follows a motion to dismiss"] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2016The law of the case doctrine forecloses re-examination of issues decided on a prior appeal in the same action, absent a showing of new evidence or a change in the law (see Clinkscale v Sampson, 104 AD3d 722, 723 [2013]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Perez, 70 AD3d 817, 817 [2010]).

2014“The law of the case doctrine forecloses re-examination of that issue, absent a showing of subsequent evidence or a change in the law” (Clinkscale v Sampson, 104 AD3d 722, 723 [2013]; see Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Perez, 70 AD3d 817, 817 [2010]).

2021Contrary to the People's contention, this Court's prior decision was not based in "'manifest error,'" nor do "'exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine'" ( People v Baker , 139 AD3d 1078, 1079 , quoting People v Martinez , 194 AD2d 741, 741-742 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Barnes , 155 AD2d 468, 469 ).

2016However, this Court’s rejection of the defendant’s claim on her prior appeal (see People v Baker, 104 AD3d 783, 784 [2013]) “constitutes the law of the case, and, absent a showing of ‘manifest error’ in the prior decision or that ‘exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine’, the defendant is precluded from having this issue reconsidered” (People v Martinez, 194 AD2d 741, 741-742 [1993], quoting People v Barnes, 155 AD2d 468, 469 [1989]; see People v Riley, 22 AD3d 609, 610 [2005]; People v Taylor, 87 AD2d 771, 772 [1982], affd 57 NY2d 729 [1982]).

2013“The law of the case operates to foreclose re-examination of that issue absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances.” (Lipp v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 57 AD3d 953, 954 [2d Dept 2008].) The Court, in Frankson v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. ( 67 AD3d 213, 217-218 [2d Dept 2009]), instructed: “Unlike res judicata and collateral estoppel, which ‘are rigid rules of limitation,’ the law of the case doctrine ‘is a judicially crafted policy that “expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, [and is] not a limit to their power” ’ (People v Evans, 94 NY

2009Unlike res judicata and collateral estoppel, which “are rigid rules of limitation,” the law of the case doctrine “is a judicially crafted policy that ‘expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, [and is] not a limit to their power’ ” (People v Evans, 94 NY2d at 503 , quoting Messenger v Anderson, 225 US 436, 444 [1912]).