Opinion
Argued November 20, 2000.
December 19, 2000.
In an action, inter alia, to recover on a promissory note and a guarantee, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated September 14, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment dismissing the first and second counterclaims alleging fraud and breach of contract, respectively, and denied those branches of their cross motion which were for leave to replead and/or amend their counterclaims and to compel the plaintiffs to appear for depositions.
Wechsler Bursky Cohen, LLP, New York, N.Y. (David B. Wechsler and Mitchell S. Cohen of counsel), for appellants.
Pryor Cashman Sherman Flynn, New York, N.Y. (Ilene S. Farkas of counsel), for respondents.
Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, HOWARD MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly dismissed the defendants' counterclaims alleging fraud and breach of contract, as those counterclaims were based on the same allegations which were previously found by this court to be unsubstantiated (see, Kowalski Enters. v. Sem Intl., 250 A.D.2d 648). That determination is the law of the case (see, Matter of Morrison, 273 A.D.2d 475; Darema-Rogers v. Rogers, 268 A.D.2d 455).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was for leave to amend their counterclaims (see, Carranza v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 233 A.D.2d 287).
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.