Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly relied upon the law of the case doctrine in determining that her General Business Law § 349 claim was governed by a three-year statute of limitations, and that her fraud claim was not pleaded with the requisite degree of specificity (see Maragliano v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 119 A.D.3d 534, 536, 987 N.Y.S.2d 885 ; Grossman v. Team Care Home Care Agency, Inc., 14 A.D.3d 652, 652, 789 N.Y.S.2d 303 ). Although, pursuant to the law of the case doctrine, this Court is not bound by the Supreme Court's prior determination, we find no basis here to disturb the Supreme Court's invocation of that doctrine (see Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. North Shore Signature Homes, Inc., 125 A.D.3d 799, 1 N.Y.S.3d 841 ; Pastrana v. Cutler, 115 A.D.3d 725, 727, 983 N.Y.S.2d 33 ; see also Gaidon v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 96 N.Y.2d 201, 210, 727 N.Y.S.2d 30, 750 N.E.2d 1078 ; Loiodice v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 125 A.D.3d 723, 726, 4 N.Y.S.3d 102 ; Brualdi v. IBERIA, Lineas Aereas de Espana, S.A., 79 A.D.3d 959, 960–961, 913 N.Y.S.2d 753 ). Further, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff's General Business Law § 349 claim accrued, insofar as asserted against the American Express defendants, on the date she closed on the purchase of the subject property, and not when she discovered the alleged deceptive act (see Corsello v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 18 N.Y.3d 777, 789, 944 N.Y.S.2d 732, 967 N.E.2d 1177 ; Gaidon v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 96 N.Y.2d 201, 210, 727 N.Y.S.2d 30, 750 N.E.2d 1078 ; Loiodice v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 125 A.D.3d 723, 726, 4 N.Y.S.3d 102 ; Beller v. William Penn Life Ins. Co., 8 A.D.3d 310, 314, 778 N.Y.S.2d 82 ).