COMBIER v. ANDERSON

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Elizabeth COMBIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Fred ANDERSON, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Decided: November 21, 2006

BUCKLEY, P.J., TOM, MAZZARELLI, SAXE, McGUIRE, JJ. Elizabeth Combier, appellant pro se. Law Offices of Michael E. Pressman, New York (Irvin Lederer of counsel), for respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lottie E. Wilkins, J.), entered July 6, 2005, after a jury trial, in favor of the defendants-respondents, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Consideration of most of the issues raised by plaintiff in this appeal from the judgment is precluded by law of the case as a result of plaintiff's prior appeal from the order denying her motion to set aside the verdict (26 A.D.3d 269, 808 N.Y.S.2d 902 [2006] ).   Plaintiff's objection to the bill of costs is wholly without merit given defendants' success at trial and that the only item included in the bill are statutory costs under CPLR 8201.   We decline to review the issues involving the order that granted defendants partial summary judgment in view of the dismissal of plaintiff's appeal from that order for failure to perfect (see Rubeo v. National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 N.Y.2d 750, 697 N.Y.S.2d 866, 720 N.E.2d 86 [1999] ).   Because plaintiff could not raise on her prior appeal her contention that the trial court erred in declaring a mistrial at the initial trial (see Slavin v. Berlin, 172 A.D.2d 514, 568 N.Y.S.2d 334 [1991];  Graney Dev. Corp. v. Taksen, 66 A.D.2d 1008, 411 N.Y.S.2d 756, 757 [1978] ), review of that contention is not barred by law of the case.   However, nothing in the record before us supports plaintiff's claim that the trial court's declaration of a mistrial was improper.   We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them to be without merit.