Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly held that the doctrine of law of the case precluded the defendant from relitigating an issue that was previously decided by order of the same court dated July 12, 1983. That order held that defendant was responsible for payment of the infant's medical bills, irrespective of the infant's assets contained in a certain fund. The defendant now claims that this fund should be used to pay for these expenses. Although the doctrine of law of the case does not apply on appeal from a later order (see, Ennist v. Shepherd, 117 A.D.2d 580), in this case we decline to exercise our discretion to consider the defendant's contention on the merits (see, Tagarelli v. Tagarelli, 50 A.D.2d 917). Bracken, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.