Pentacon, LLC v 422 Knickerbocker, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06758 [2d Dept. 2018]
Contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, its prior denial of the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint did not, under the law of the case doctrine, preclude review of the defendants’ current motion for summary judgment (see Borawski v Abulafia, [*2]140 AD3d 817, 817-818; State of New York v Barclays Bank of N.Y., 151 AD2d 19, 20-21). In any event, this Court is not bound by the doctrine of law of the case (see Precision Window Sys., Inc. v EMB Contr. Corp., 149 AD3d 883, 884; Ramanathan v Aharon, 109 AD3d 529, 531).
Lee v Allen, 2018 NY Slip Op 06890 [2d Dept. 2018]
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint and bill of particulars to add a demand for punitive damages, as there was no prejudice or surprise to the defendants and the proposed amendment was not palpably insufficient or devoid of merit (see CPLR 3025[b]; Postiglione v Castro, 119 AD3d 920, 922). Although the plaintiff unsuccessfully moved for the same relief in a prior motion, “[t]he doctrine of the law of the case does not bind appellate courts, and thus, this Court is not bound by the law of the case established by the prior determination” (Hothan v Mercy Med. Ctr., 105 AD3d 905, 905).
Independent Chem. Corp. v Puthanpurayil, 2018 NY Slip Op 07193 [1st Dept. 2018]
Nor does the doctrine of law of the case compel a different conclusion (see People v Cummings, 31 NY3d 204, 208-209  [no absolute bar to successor justice seeking to rectify predecessor’s errors]; Foley v Roche, 86 AD2d 887, 887 [2d Dept 1982] [“plain” error may warrant departure from doctrine], lv denied 56 NY2d 507 ; see also 1 Carmody-Wait 2d § 2:367 [law of case rule is “discretionary”]). In any event, the doctrine has no binding force on appeal (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 59 AD3d 333, 335 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 713 ).