KIMSO APARTMENTS, LLC, ETC. PLAINTIFFS/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-res, v. MAHESH GANDHI, DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTap; ARLINGTON FILLER ADDITIONAL COUNTERCLAIM def-res

KIMSO APARTMENTS, LLC, ETC. PLAINTIFFS/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-res, v. MAHESH GANDHI, DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTap; ARLINGTON FILLER ADDITIONAL COUNTERCLAIM def-res — (INDEX NO. 13489/03)In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs/counterclaim defendants separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Fusco, J.), dated September 1, 2011, as, upon a decision and order (one paper) of the same court dated August 22, 2011, made after a nonjury trial, inter alia, granting the defendant/counterclaim plaintiff's application to conform the pleadings to the proof to include a counterclaim for payments allegedly due pursuant to a settlement agreement dated August 14, 2002, and for judgment on that counterclaim, is in favor of the defendant/counterclaim plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $1,700,000 on that counterclaim and dismissed the complaint, and the defendant/counterclaim plaintiff cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the same judgment as dismissed his counterclaim for costs and legal fees. By decision and order dated March 13, 2013, this Court modified the judgment by deleting the second, third, fourth, and fifth decretal paragraphs thereof, and as so modified, affirmed the judgment insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, denied the application to conform the pleadings to the proof to include a counterclaim for payments allegedly due pursuant to a settlement agreement dated August 14, 2002, and for judgment on that counterclaim, and modified the decision and order dated August 22, 2011, accordingly (see Kimso Apts., LLC v. Gandhi, 104 AD3d 742). In an opinion dated November 25, 2014, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and order of this Court and remitted the matter to this Court for consideration of the issues raised but not determined on the appeal to this Court (see Kimso Apts., LLC v. Gandhi, 24 NY3d 403, 414).