From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

John Gannone v. Samuel Wittman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 24, 1996
232 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

October 24, 1996.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered September 28, 1995, which, in an action pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 630 (a) by plaintiff Union to recover against defendant shareholder unpaid contributions as to plaintiffs welfare fund, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Tom and Andrias, JJ.


Law of the case doctrine is not applicable here because the earlier motion was a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 while the instant motion is one for summary judgment ( Tenzer, Greenblatt, Fallon Kaplan v Capri Jewelry, 128 AD2d 467, 469). Since the unpaid services in question were performed between November 1, 1989 and August 1, 1990, and between October 1, 1990 and March 21, 1991, plaintiff, in order to comply with the 180-day notice requirement of the statute, had to service notice of intent on respondent by February 1, 1991 for the first period and by September 21, 1991 for the second period ( see, Grossman v Sendor, 89 Misc 2d 952, 955, mod on other grounds 64 AD2d 561). Its failure to serve such notice until May 16, 1992 requires dismissal of the action.


Summaries of

John Gannone v. Samuel Wittman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 24, 1996
232 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

John Gannone v. Samuel Wittman

Case Details

Full title:JOHN GANNONE et al., Appellants, v. SAMUEL WITTMAN, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 24, 1996

Citations

232 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
649 N.Y.S.2d 14

Citing Cases

Riddick v. City of New York

Initially, we find plaintiff's reliance on the law of the case doctrine misplaced. That doctrine is…

Light v. Boussi

Plaintiff's argument must be rejected. The law of the case doctrine "is inapplicable where, as here, a…