Catuzza v. Rodriguez

Decision Date16 March 2012
Citation940 N.Y.S.2d 420,93 A.D.3d 1214,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01949
PartiesChristopher CATUZZA, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. David RODRIGUEZ, Esq., Noemi Fernandez–Hiltz, Esq., and The Law Offices of Noemi Fernandez, PLLC, Defendants–Appellants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Damon Morey LLP, Buffalo (Kara M. Addelman of Counsel), for DefendantAppellant David Rodriguez, Esq.

Hurwitz & Fine, P.C., Buffalo (Earl K. Cantwell of Counsel), for DefendantsAppellants Noemi Fernandez–Hiltz, Esq., and The Law Offices of Noemi Fernandez, PLLC.

Kevin T. Stocker, Tonawanda, for PlaintiffRespondent.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Plaintiff commenced this legal malpractice action seeking damages allegedly resulting from defendants' negligence in their representation of him in an action against, inter alia, his former employer, the Erie County Water Authority (hereafter, ECWA action). The ECWA action was dismissed based upon plaintiff's failure to comply with discovery demands. Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendant David Rodriguez, Esq. and the motion of defendants Noemi Fernandez–Hiltz, Esq. and The Law Offices of Noemi Fernandez, PLLC seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendants moved for such relief on the ground that plaintiff could not have prevailed in the ECWA action, inasmuch as he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by appealing the determination of the Hearing Officer in the prior proceeding pursuant to Civil Service Law § 72. Defendants, however, failed to establish as a matter of law that the complaint in the ECWA action would have been dismissed on that ground ( see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718). Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a defense that may be waived if not timely raised ( see Matter of Punis v. Perales, 112 A.D.2d 236, 238, 491 N.Y.S.2d 451), and the defendants in the ECWA action did not raise that defense in their answer. Further, inasmuch as ‘the grounds urged for relief’ and the remedies sought in [the ECWA action and the prior Civil Service Law § 72 proceeding] are separate and distinct,” plaintiff did not fail to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to the conduct of the defendants in the ECWA action ( Matter of Sokol v. Granville Cent. School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 260 A.D.2d 692, 694, 688 N.Y.S.2d 717).

It is hereby...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Mid City Elec. Corp. v. Peckar & Abramson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 12 Abril 2021
    ... ... also Cavlak v Helbraun, 2013 NY Slip Op ... 32704(U), *3 [Sup Ct, NY County 2013], citing ... Catuzza v Rodriguez, 93 A.D.3d 1214, ... 1214-1214 [4d Dept 2012] ... [failure to exhaust administrative remedies may be a factor ... in determining ... ...
  • A.E. v. Hamilton Coll.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 14 Junio 2019
    ...may be waived if not timely raised ..., and [respondents] did not raise that defense in their answer" ( Catuzza v. Rodriguez, 93 A.D.3d 1214, 1214–1215, 940 N.Y.S.2d 420 [4th Dept. 2012] ; see Matter of Mitchell v. New York City Dept. of Correction, 94 A.D.3d 583, 584, 942 N.Y.S.2d 499 [1st......
  • People v. Williams
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 16 Marzo 2012

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT