First Choice Plumbing Corp. v. Miller Law Offices, PLLC, 2015–11336

Decision Date22 August 2018
Docket NumberIndex No. 602921/15,2015–11336
Citation164 A.D.3d 756,84 N.Y.S.3d 171
Parties FIRST CHOICE PLUMBING CORP., et al., appellants, v. MILLER LAW OFFICES, PLLC, respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

164 A.D.3d 756
84 N.Y.S.3d 171

FIRST CHOICE PLUMBING CORP., et al., appellants,
v.
MILLER LAW OFFICES, PLLC, respondent.

2015–11336
Index No. 602921/15

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—February 23, 2018
August 22, 2018


84 N.Y.S.3d 172

Kennedy Lillis Schmidt & English, New York, N.Y. (John T. Lillis, Jr., of counsel), for appellants.

L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Anthony P. Colavita and Mateo J. Vila of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, BETSY BARROS, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Timothy S. Driscoll, J.), entered October 16, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that no attorney-client relationship existed.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that no attorney-client relationship existed is denied, so much of the order as, in effect, denied, as academic, the remaining branches of the defendant's motion is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a determination on the merits of the remaining branches of the defendant's motion.

The plaintiffs First Choice Plumbing Corp. (hereinafter First Choice) and Malacy Plumbing Supply, Inc. (hereinafter Malacy), commenced this action to recover damages for legal malpractice against the defendant Miller Law Offices, PLLC, for its alleged negligence concerning two mechanic's liens. The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs failed to receive full payment for plumbing services and supplies they provided on a construction project, and that the plaintiffs each filed a mechanic's lien to recover the monies owed. The complaint further alleges that the liens were extended once, but subsequently lapsed and were extinguished by operation of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Shah v. Mitra
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 10, 2019
    ..., 127 A.D.3d 850, 851, 7 N.Y.S.3d 325 ; see Nero v. Fiore , 165 A.D.3d at 826, 86 N.Y.S.3d 96 ; First Choice Plumbing Corp. v. Miller Law Offs., PLLC , 164 A.D.3d 756, 758, 84 N.Y.S.3d 171 ; Granada Condominium III Assn. v. Palomino , 78 A.D.3d 996, 997, 913 N.Y.S.2d 668 ). CPLR 3211(b) pro......
  • Magee-Boyle v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 26, 2019
    ...( Granada Condominium III Assn. v. Palomino, 78 A.D.3d 996, 996–997, 913 N.Y.S.2d 668 ; see First Choice Plumbing Corp. v. Miller Law Offs., PLLC, 164 A.D.3d 756, 757, 84 N.Y.S.3d 171 ; Fontanetta v. John Doe 1, 73 A.D.3d 78, 86, 898 N.Y.S.2d 569 ). "[J]udicial records, as well as documents......
  • Tiffany Tower Condo., LLC v. Ins. Co. of the Greater N.Y.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • August 22, 2018
    ... ... ) commenced this action seeking, in the first cause of action, to recover damages for breach of ... Corp. v. Mount Kisco Lodge No. 1552 of Benevolent & ... ...
  • Leader v. Steinway, Inc., 2017–07246
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 19, 2020
    ...v. John Doe 1, 73 A.D.3d 78, 84–85, 898 N.Y.S.2d 569 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see First Choice Plumbing Corp. v. Miller Law Off., PLLC, 164 A.D.3d 756, 758, 84 N.Y.S.3d 171 ). Here, the affidavit of the defendant Domenico Pinto does not constitute documentary evidence within the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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