Case Name: Murray Breidbart et al., Plaintiffs, v. Melvin L. Wiesenthal et al., Defendants, Cornell Holding Corp., Appellant, and Albob Associates et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-02-17
Citations: 136 A.D.3d 851
Docket Number: 
Parties: Murray Breidbart et al., Plaintiffs, v Melvin L. Wiesenthal et al., Defendants, Cornell Holding Corp., Appellant, and Albob Associates et al., Respondents.
Judges: Dickerson, J.P., Hall, Roman and Duffy, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 136
Pages: 851–852

Head Matter:
Murray Breidbart et al., Plaintiffs, v Melvin L. Wiesenthal et al., Defendants, Cornell Holding Corp., Appellant, and Albob Associates et al., Respondents.
[24 NYS3d 922]-

Opinion:
In an action, inter alia, to compel partnership accountings and a distribution of partnership assets, the defendant Cornell Holding Corp. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated January 8, 2014, as denied its motion to compel the defendants Albob Associates, Brooklawn Associates, and Samuel Goldstein to account for the gain on the sale of the real property of Albob Associates.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
As a general rule, the doctrine of law of the case precludes this Court from reexamining an issue which has been raised and decided against a party or those in privity with that party on a prior appeal absent a showing of subsequent evidence or a change in law (see Matter of Fulmer v Buxenbaum, 109 AD3d 822, 823 [2013]; Allison v Allison, 60 AD3d 711, 711 [2009]; Briggs v Chapman, 53 AD3d 900, 901 [2008]; J-Mar Serv. Ctr., Inc. v Mahoney, Connor & Hussey, 45 AD3d 809, 810 [2007]). On a prior appeal (see Breidbart v Wiesenthal, 108 AD3d 492 [2013]), this Court determined that representatives of the retired/deceased partner were not entitled to share in the ap preciation of partnership assets after the date of dissolution of the partnerships, i.e., the gain on the sale of commercial real estate sold after the date of dissolution. On this appeal, the defendant Cornell Holding Corp. has not demonstrated new factual circumstances or a change in the law which would warrant our reconsideration of this issue (see Briggs v Chapman, 53 AD3d at 901-902; see also York v York, 98 AD3d 1042, 1042-1043 [2012]; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Grant, 88 AD3d 929, 929 [2011]; Cinelli Bldrs., Inc. v Ferris, 78 AD3d 881, 882 [2010]; Frankson v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 67 AD3d 213, 217-218 [2009]).
Dickerson, J.P., Hall, Roman and Duffy, JJ., concur.