Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs contentions were previously raised and decided against him, or could have been raised on a prior appeal in this matter (see Stone v Stone, 19 AD3d 404 [2005]). “Therefore, reconsideration of these issues is barred by the doctrine of law of the case” (Matter of Suzuki-Peters v Peters, 37 AD3d 726 [2007], quoting Palumbo v Palumbo, 10 AD3d 680 [2004]; see Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 18 AD3d 551 [2005], affd 7 NY3d 320 [2006]; Jacobs v Macy’s E., Inc., 17 AD3d 318, 319 [2005]).
We decline the respondent’s request to impose sanctions against the plaintiff (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a]). Mastro, J.E, Ritter, Skelos, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.