Opinion
March 11, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.).
Ordered that the appeal of Beth Cohen is dismissed, as she is not aggrieved by the portion of the order appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from by Winthrop University Hospital and John Gomes, on the law, and the branches of the respective motions of the defendants Winthrop University Hospital and John Gomes which were for summary judgment dismissing the sixth through tenth causes of action of the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them, on the merits, are granted; and it is further,
Ordered that, upon searching the record, the order is modified, on the law, by inserting therein a provision awarding the defendant Anthony Batista summary judgment dismissing the sixth through tenth causes of action of the amended complaint insofar as asserted against him, on the merits; and it is further,
Ordered that the defendants Winthrop University Hospital and John Gomes are awarded one bill of costs.
In an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated March 4, 1994, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted the branches of the motions of the defendants Winthrop University Hospital, John Gomes, and Anthony Batista, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7), which were to dismiss the sixth through tenth causes of action for failure to state a cause of action, but denied the branches of their respective motions which were for partial summary judgment dismissing the sixth through tenth causes of action. The Supreme Court also granted leave to the plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint repleading those causes of action. The plaintiffs served an amended complaint pursuant to that order of the Supreme Court. Subsequently, this Court reversed that order of the Supreme Court insofar as appealed from and held that those defendants were entitled to partial summary judgment dismissing the causes of action asserted in the original complaint (see, Losquadro v. Winthrop Univ. Hosp., 216 A.D.2d 533).
The instant motions seek the same relief as to the sixth through tenth causes of action asserted in the amended complaint. This Court's prior ruling in Losquadro v Winthrop Univ. Hosp. (supra), is the law of the case. Since there has been no showing that our prior decision proceeded on the basis of manifest error, or that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine, the defendants Winthrop University Hospital, John Gomes, and Anthony Batista are entitled to the same relief as to the amended complaint as that previously granted by this Court with respect to the original complaint (see, People v Martinez, 194 A.D.2d 741; Weiss v Flushing Natl. Bank, 176 A.D.2d 797; People v Barnes, 155 A.D.2d 468). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.