Buongiovanni v. Hasin
| Decision Date | 13 June 2018 |
| Docket Number | (Index No. 33080/14),2015–05202,2016–00632 |
| Citation | 79 N.Y.S.3d 251,162 A.D.3d 736 |
| Parties | Cynthia BUONGIOVANNI, appellant, v. David V. HASIN, etc., et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
162 A.D.3d 736
79 N.Y.S.3d 251
Cynthia BUONGIOVANNI, appellant,
v.
David V. HASIN, etc., et al., respondents.
2015–05202
2016–00632
(Index No. 33080/14)
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Submitted—February 1, 2018
June 13, 2018
Karen F. Winner, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Voute, Lohrfink, Magro & McAndrew, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Edward G. Warren of counsel), for respondents.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (William A. Kelly, J.), dated June 1, 2015, and January 6, 2016, respectively. The order dated June 1, 2015, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for leave to renew that branch of their prior motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the cause of action alleging legal malpractice, which had been denied in an order of that court dated March 26, 2015, and, upon renewal, in effect, vacated that determination and thereupon granted that branch of the defendants' prior motion. The order dated January 6, 2016, denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to reargue her opposition to that branch of the defendants' motion which was for leave to renew.
Motion by the defendants to dismiss the appeal from the order dated January 6, 2016, on the ground that no appeal lies
from an order denying reargument. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated March 15, 2016, the motion was held in abeyance and referred to the Justices hearing the appeals for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeals, it is
ORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated January 6, 2016, is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated June 1, 2015, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.
The defendant David V. Hasin, the principal of the defendant Law Office of David V. Hasin, represented the plaintiff in related divorce actions. Hasin was permitted to withdraw as counsel, and the plaintiff was assigned new counsel. The plaintiff's assigned counsel was permitted to withdraw as counsel five days prior to the start of the trial in the first action, and the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's application for an adjournment to enable her to obtain new counsel and conduct further discovery. The parties proceeded to trial, resulting in a decision after trial and a judgment of divorce dated August 20, 2012.
On November 5, 2014, the plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, alleging that Hasin provided her with negligent representation in the divorce actions. In January 2015, the defendants moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the cause of action alleging legal malpractice, arguing that successor counsel could have remedied any alleged deficiencies in Hasin's representation. In an order dated March 26, 2015, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the cause of action alleging...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Verizon N.Y., Inc. v. Supervisors of Town of N. Hempstead
...to "new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination" ( CPLR 2221[e][2] ; see Buongiovanni v. Hasin, 162 A.D.3d 736, 738, 79 N.Y.S.3d 251 ). "The new or additional facts presented ‘either must have not been known to the party seeking renewal or may, in the......
-
Burro v. Kang
...failure to present certain facts initially" ( Martelloni v. Martelloni, 154 A.D.3d 924, 926, 62 N.Y.S.3d 502 ; see Buongiovanni v. Hasin, 162 A.D.3d 736, 738, 79 N.Y.S.3d 251 ). Here, contrary to the appellants' contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in consideri......
-
Faruk v. Dawn
...v. Jones, 46 A.D.3d at 66, 843 N.Y.S.2d 462 ). Specifically, "it must be shown that the process server made genuine inquiries about the 79 N.Y.S.3d 251defendant's whereabouts and place of employment" ( Estate of Waterman v. Jones, 46 A.D.3d at 66, 843 N.Y.S.2d 462 ; see Serraro v. Staropoli......
-
Crosby v. Southport, LLC
...its motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, its motion for leave to renew should have been granted (see e.g. Buongiovanni v. Hasin, 162 A.D.3d 736, 738–739, 79 N.Y.S.3d 251 ; NYCTL 2009–A Trust v. Kimball Group, LLC, 158 A.D.3d 635, 636, 71 N.Y.S.3d 119 )."An out-of-possession landlord is......