Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The issues raised by the plaintiff on this appeal have been raised, or could have been raised, on numerous prior occasions ( see, Duffy v. Holt-Harris, 159 A.D.2d 542, appeal dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 772, lv dismissed 90 N.Y.2d 925, rearg denied 91 N.Y.2d 867; Duffy v. Holt-Harris, 198 A.D.2d 326, lv dismissed 83 N.Y.2d 801; Duffy v. Holt-Harris, 89 N.Y.2d 962, rearg denied 90 N.Y.2d 845). Under the circumstances, further review is barred by the doctrine of the law of the case ( see, 10 Carmody-Wait 2d, Appeals in General § 70:424, at 456).
Furthermore, given the plaintiff's history of engaging in frivolous litigation, the Supreme Court properly enjoined him from making any further motions in this action in the absence of prior approval by the court ( see, Braten v. Finkelstein, 235 A.D.2d 513).
Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.