Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Abraham C. GROSSMAN, respondent, v. TEAM CARE HOME CARE AGENCY, INC., et al., appellants.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a joint venture agreement, the defendants appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pfau, J.), dated April 23, 2003, as granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to compel the defendants to disclose the location of certain proceeds received from a nonparty, Allen Health Care, during the pendency of the action, and to dismiss their affirmative defense of failure to join a necessary party.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the disclosure sought by the plaintiffs, the location of the proceeds of the sale of the assets of the corporation at issue in this proceeding, had been granted by a prior order from which no appeal had been taken. Since the prior determination was the law of the case (see Andrea v. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 289 A.D.2d 1039, 1041, 735 N.Y.S.2d 683; Kimmel v. State of New York, 261 A.D.2d 843, 844, 690 N.Y.S.2d 383; Ennist v. Shepherd, 117 A.D.2d 580, 580, 498 N.Y.S.2d 52), the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to compel such disclosure. The Supreme Court also properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to dismiss the defendants' affirmative defense of failure to join a necessary party (see CPLR 1001 [a]; Agrawal v. Razgaitis, 149 A.D.2d 390, 539 N.Y.S.2d 496).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: January 31, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)