BOARD OF MANAGERS OF OCEANVIEW CONDOMINIUM v. RICCARDI (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, for injunctive relief, the defendant Joseph Riccardi appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Orlando Marrazzo, Jr., J.), dated December 12, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied those branches of that defendant's motion which were, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate so much of a judgment of the same court dated March 3, 2020, as was in favor of the plaintiff and against that defendant directing him to legalize an illegal extension to his penthouse unit or to restore the penthouse to its prior legal condition and to vacate the imposition of related fines, and granted that branch of the plaintiff's cross-motion which was to hold that defendant in civil contempt for his failure to comply with the judgment and court orders directing him to legalize the extension or to restore the penthouse to its prior legal condition.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The underlying facts giving rise to this action are summarized in our decision and order on a prior appeal (see Board of Mgrs. of Oceanview Condominium v Riccardi, 229 AD3d 595). Following a nonjury trial, in a decision dated January 24, 2020, the Supreme Court determined that an extension to a penthouse unit owned by the defendant Joseph Riccardi (hereinafter the defendant), which had been added by the penthouse unit's prior owner, was unlawfully built without a permit and that the defendant was required to legalize the extension or restore the penthouse to its prior legal condition. A judgment dated March 3, 2020, was entered upon the decision, inter alia, in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing him to legalize the extension or to restore the penthouse to its prior legal condition. The defendant appealed from the judgment (see id. at 597). By decision and order dated July 17, 2024, this Court, among other things, affirmed so much of the judgment as directed the defendant to legalize the extension or to restore the penthouse to its prior legal condition (see id. at 598).

Thereafter, the defendant moved, inter alia, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate so much of the judgment as directed him to legalize the extension or to restore the penthouse to its prior legal condition and to vacate the imposition of related fines. The plaintiff opposed the motion and cross-moved, among other things, to hold the defendant in civil contempt for his failure to comply with the judgment and court orders directing him to legalize the extension or to restore the penthouse to its prior legal condition. In an order dated December 12, 2024, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied those branches of the defendant's motion and granted that branch of the plaintiff's cross-motion. The defendant appeals.

An appellate court's resolution of an issue on a prior appeal constitutes the law of the case and is binding on the Supreme Court, as well as on the appellate court, and operates to foreclose re-examination of the question absent a showing of subsequent evidence or change of law (see Esposito v. Larig, 241 AD3d 781; Matter of Norton v. Town of Islip, 167 AD3d 624, 626). 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 (see Matter of Chung Li, 165 AD3d 1105, 1106; RPG Consulting, Inc. v. Zormati, 82 AD3d 739, 740). “It bars reconsideration of issues which were raised and determined against a party or which could have been raised on a prior appeal” (Matter of Chung Li, 165 AD3d at 1106).

On the prior appeal, this Court considered, and rejected, the defendant's contention that he should not be required to legalize the illegal extension or restore the penthouse to its prior legal condition (see Board of Mgrs. of Oceanview Condominium v Riccardi, 229 AD3d at 598). The defendant has failed to make a sufficient showing to warrant reexamination of those issues (see Esposito v. Larig, 241 AD3d at 782; Matter of Norton v. Town of Islip, 167 AD3d at 626).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendant's motion which were, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate so much of the judgment as directed him to legalize the extension or to restore the penthouse to its prior legal condition and to vacate the imposition of related fines, and granted that branch of the plaintiff's cross-motion which was to hold the defendant in civil contempt for his failure to comply with the judgment and court orders directing him to legalize the extension or to restore the penthouse to its prior legal condition.

CONNOLLY, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WARHIT and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.