Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219 (a), of the papers considered in the review of this Motion Papers Numbered Notice of Motion and Affidavits Annexed Order to Show Cause 1 Answering Affidavits 2 Replying Affidavits Exhibits Supplemental Affidavit DECISION/ORDER Upon the foregoing papers, Respondent’s MILAN FURNITURE, INC., and GEORGE HUANG, order to show cause seeking to stay an eviction granting re-argument or renewal or a prior denial of a motion to vacate a default in appearing at trial, is decided as follows: This Court had previously granted the Respondents the relief requested in this application, on the conditions that Respondents tender $846,482.07 to the Petitioner, or deposit $846,482.07 into Court. According to the affirmation of Jacob Mayer, who is the agent of the petitioner, the rent arrears of the Respondent exceed $1,880,000. Claimed arrears go back to 2016. The Respondents have cycled through multiple attorneys. The Respondents have also failed at a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment. As stated in the moving papers, a trial date was set for March 6, 2024. Respondent’s previous attorney obtained an order to show cause seeking to be relieved as attorney, with a return date of March 14, 2024. When the case came up for the trial date of March 6, 2024, Respondents failed to appear. According to the reply, new counsel “was retained just a few days before March 6, 2024, and when the case was on the calendar that day, the Respondents assumed that the only thing before the Court was the motion to be relief.” In other words, the Respondents’ new attorney “blew off” the scheduled trial date. On March 6, 2024, after Respondents failed to appear, Judge Lisa Lewis granted the order to show cause, denied a further stay, and permitted the Petitioner to proceed at an inquest. This Court grants re-argument, but will adhere to its previous decision. The Court also notes that there was no request to refer this case to Judge Lewis. The Court will follow the law of the case doctrine. The doctrine of the ‘law of the case’ is a rule of practice, an articulation of sound policy that, when an issue is once judicially determined, that should be the end of the matter as far as Judges and courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction are concerned, Strujan v. Glencord Building Corp., 137 A.D.3d 1252 (2nd Dept. 2016). The Court also notes that the Respondents have e-filed a notice of appeal of this Court’s prior order, on July 18, 2024. All stays are hereby vacated. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. Dated: October 3, 2024
