Genet v. Buzin

• Decision Date: 20 March 2018
• Docket Number: 6038,Index 162666/15,6037,6038A
• Citation: 72 N.Y.S.3d 81,159 A.D.3d 540
• Parties: Randy GENET, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Andrew Scott BUZIN, et al., Defendants–Respondents, Allen Victor Koss, et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

159 A.D.3d 540

72 N.Y.S.3d 81

Randy GENET, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants,

v. Andrew Scott BUZIN, et al., Defendants–Respondents,Allen Victor Koss, et al., Defendants.

6037

6038

6038A

Index 162666/15

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

ENTERED: MARCH 20, 2018

Randy S. Genet, appellant pro se.

Gerald H. Genet, appellant pro se.

Kennedys CMK, New York (Sean T. Burns of counsel), for respondents.

Friedman, J.P., Richter, Mazzarelli, Kapnick, Gesmer, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered September 29, 2016, dismissing the complaint as against defendants Andrew Scott Buzin, Buzin Law, P.C., Leslie L. Lewis, and Carly Marie Jannetty, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered September 14, 2016, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint as against them, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment. Order, same court and Justice, entered January 20, 2017, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs' motion to renew so much of defendants' motion to dismiss as was based on lack of personal jurisdiction, and for leave to serve an amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs' proposed amendment is "palpably insufficient" ( MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 A.D.3d 499, 499, 901 N.Y.S.2d 522 [1st Dept. 2010] ). The allegations underlying the legal malpractice claim merely "reflect plaintiff[s'] dissatisfaction with defendants' strategic choices and tactics; there is no showing that those choices and tactics were unreasonable" ( Kassel v. Donohue, 127 A.D.3d 674, 674, 6 N.Y.S.3d 916 [1st Dept. 2015], lv dismissed 26 N.Y.3d 940, 17 N.Y.S.3d 57, 38 N.E.3d 800 [2015] ; see also Rosner v. Paley, 65 N.Y.2d 736, 738, 492 N.Y.S.2d 13, 481 N.E.2d 553 [1985] ). The breach of contract claim is duplicative of the legal malpractice claim, since it arises from the same facts and alleges similar damages (see Rivas v. Raymond Schwartzberg & Assoc., PLLC, 52 A.D.3d 401, 861 N.Y.S.2d 313 [1st Dept. 2008] ).

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach plaintiffs' argument about personal jurisdiction.