Negron v Goldman (2004 NY Slip Op 50958(U))

Negron v Goldman

2004 NY Slip Op 50958(U)

Decided on August 20, 2004

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

LARRY NEGRON AND GARY J. NEGRON, Plaintiffs-Respondents,

against

JANE HARRIET GOLDMAN, ALLAN HOWARD GOLDMAN AND LOUISA LITTLE As Co- Trustees of the LILLIAN GOLDMAN MARITAL TRUST UNDER THE WILL OF SOL GOLDMAN, Defendants-Appellants.

Defendants appeal from a judgment of the Civil court, New York County, entered February 7, 2002 after an assessment of damages (Debra A. James, J.) in favor of the plaintiffs in the principal sum of $56,048.16, plus interest and costs.

Judgment entered February 7, 2002 (Debra A. James, J.) affirmed, with $25 costs.

Defendants' principal argument that any damages for rent overcharge are precluded under the four-year limitation on examination of the rent history (see, CPLR § 213-a; Myers v Frankel, 292 AD2d 575; Matter of Sessler v DHCR, 282 AD2d 262) is not properly raised on this appeal. On defendants' prior appeal, we affirmed that portion of Civil Court's January 1998 order setting the matter down for an assessment of the overcharges based upon the "last lawful rent" of $403.60 (Negron v Goldman, NYLJ, May 4, 1999, at 26, col 2). Under "law [*2]of the case" doctrine, principles of finality weigh heavily against the relitigation of issues previously decided in an action (see People v Evans, 94 NY2d 499, 502-504). Moreover, there is an outstanding February 1999 order of Supreme Court (Omansky, J.) from which defendants' appeal to the Appellate Division was dismissed for lack of prosecution (see Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350), which determined that the initial registered rent of $900 was void and should reflect the prior regulated rent of $403.60. For parallel reasons, the December 2, 1991 registration of $900, challenged within four years, is also infirm. This court is not authorized to review or overrule an order of Supreme Court (see Mears v Chrysler Financial Corp., 243 AD2d 270).

We have reviewed Civil Court's calculation of damages and conclude that, notwithstanding any contrary language in the decision, the actual amount awarded corresponds to overcharges occurring no more than four years before commencement of the action.