Law of the case

Plaintiff pro se served an amended complaint without leave of the
court in which he named as additional defendants four partners of the
law firm that had represented him in the underlying action. Defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint on the ground that the newly
added partners had no connection with the underlying action or contact
with plaintiff. The motion court, after noting that the amended
complaint was improperly served without court leave, dismissed it as
against the newly added partners for failure to state a cause of action
as against them "in their individual capacity." Several months later,
plaintiff moved for leave to add the same four partners, submitting a
proposed second amended complaint that was the same as the first except
that it added an allegation that the four were partners of the firm at
the time of the alleged malpractice "and are each individually, jointly
and severally, liable for the acts and omissions of their partners."
The motion court characterized the claim against the proposed four new
defendants as "colorable," citing Partnership Law § 26, and
granted plaintiff leave to add them.

On appeal, defendants do not argue that the amended complaint
fails to state a cause of action as against the four newly added
defendants, but rather that the court, in permitting their joinder,
violated the law of the case doctrine, exceeded its authority by
exercising appellate jurisdiction to sua sponte vacate its own order,
and erroneously granted what was actually an untimely motion to
reargue. The law of the case doctrine, however, is not implicated
because the court did not alter a ruling by another court of coordinate
jurisdiction but rather its own ruling (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 59 AD3d 333
[2009]). "[E]very court retains continuing jurisdiction to reconsider
its [own] prior interlocutory orders during the pendency of the action"
(Liss v Trans Auto Sys., 68 NY2d 15, 20 [1986]), and may do so "regardless of statutory time limits concerning motions to reargue" (id.).
Thus, even if plaintiff's motion for leave to add the four partners
were a belated motion to reargue the prior order dismissing the action
as against those partners for failure to state a cause of action, the
court had discretion to [*2]reconsider
its prior order, sua sponte, and correct it. Such discretion was
properly exercised here in view of plaintiff's pro se status.

With respect to the remaining portion of the order, we note that,
contrary to the contention of defendant, the motion court did not
violate the doctrine of law of the case by allegedly overruling the
prior "so-ordered" stipulation and substituting its own order therefor.
The doctrine of law of the case is not applicable to prior discovery
orders (see e.g. Sullivan v Nigro, 48 AD3d 454 [2008]; Sunshine Care Corp. v Novick, 19 Misc 3d 143[A],
2008 NY Slip Op 51101[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]). It
is also noted that this court, as an appellate court, is not bound by
the law of the case doctrine (see Latture v Smith, 304 AD2d 534 [2003]; see also Sunshine Care Corp.,19
Misc 3d 143[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51101[U]). Accordingly, inasmuch as
defendant raised no other objection to the remaining portion of the
order, the order, insofar as reviewed, is affirmed.