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.
KYE PO CHOI, appellant, v. Q.R. DEVELOPMENT CORP., et al., respondents, et al., defendants.
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated April 27, 2004, which denied his motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendants Q.R. Development Corp. and Jason W. Lee upon their default in appearing or answering or, in the alternative, for a hearing to determine the validity of service of process.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
This appeal involves the plaintiff's second motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendants Q.R. Development Corp. and Jason W. Lee (hereinafter the defendants), upon their default in appearing or answering. In response to the plaintiff's first motion, the Supreme Court ordered a hearing to determine the validity of service of process. At the hearing, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' applications to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground of improper service. The plaintiff did not appeal from those dismissals. Instead, the plaintiff moved again for leave to enter a judgment against the defendants upon their default in appearing or answering or, in the alternative, for a hearing to determine the validity of service of process.
The Supreme Court's first determination was the law of the case. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's second motion, which sought relief in all material respects identical to the relief that plaintiff sought with his first, unsuccessful motion (see Haibi v. Haibi, 171 A.D.2d 842, 567 N.Y.S.2d 778; Baron v. Baron, 128 A.D.2d 821, 513 N.Y.S.2d 744).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 18, 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)