As Bernstein is not "aggrieved" by the subject order, he lacks standing to appeal and thus the appeal is dismissed (CPLR 5511; see, Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. v. Austin Powder Co., 68 N.Y.2d 465, 473). We also note that the issue which Bernstein now raises — whether he has waived his jurisdictional defense — was argued by him on his prior appeal to this Court, in which we unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment ( 198 A.D.2d 11, lv dismissed 83 N.Y.2d 801). Hence, Bernstein is precluded from relitigating that issue by the doctrine of the law of the case (see, Matter of Parsons, 78 A.D.2d 876). Finally, it is clear that by affirmatively instituting the specific performance/declaratory judgment Supreme Court action in 1990, Bernstein submitted to the jurisdiction of the court (see, Biener v. Hystron Fibers, 78 A.D.2d 162).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.