Harris v. Barbera
Citation | 947 N.Y.S.2d 548,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 04973,96 A.D.3d 904 |
Parties | Nina HARRIS, appellant, v. Janine A. BARBERA, etc., et al., respondents. |
Decision Date | 20 June 2012 |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Daniel R. Seidel, P.C., White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.
Catalano Gallardo & Petropoulos, LLP, Jericho, N.Y. (Gary Petropoulos and Maria Nanis of counsel), for respondents.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated December 1, 2010, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, and (2) from so much of a judgment of the same court entered January 18, 2011, as, upon the order, is in favor of the defendants and against her dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice. The notice of appeal from the order is deemed also to be a notice of appeal from the judgment ( seeCPLR 5501[c] ).
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the action ( see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment ( seeCPLR 5501[a][1] ).
The defendants represented the plaintiff in an action in which she sought a divorce and ancillary relief (hereinafter the underlying action). After the conclusion of the underlying action, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants alleging, inter alia, legal malpractice. The defendants moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice. The Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that branch of the motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice and dismissed that cause of action.
A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted only if the documentary evidence submitted by the moving party “utterly refutes the factual allegations of the complaint and conclusively establishes a defense to the claims as a matter of law” ( Kopelowitz & Co., Inc. v. Mann, 83 A.D.3d 793, 796, 921 N.Y.S.2d 108;Fontanetta v. John Doe 1, 73 A.D.3d 78, 83, 898 N.Y.S.2d 569). In support of that branch of their motion which was to dismiss the legal malpractice cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), the defendants submitted, among other things, a retainer agreement, or what they referred to as a matrimonial engagement agreement, executed by both the defendants and the plaintiff. The agreement stated that there was “no assurance or guarantee of the outcome” and also that the agreement “does not include representation for ... legal services after the Judgment of Trial Court ... [or][t]he Appeal of any decisions of the Trial Court.” Yet, the plaintiff, among other things, detailed in her affidavit in opposition to the motion how the defendants failed to pursue a motion for leave to reargue or other application to modify a decision in the underlying action, submitted deficient or inappropriate proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and failed to adequately address various necessary issues during the trial. Contrary to the defendants'...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Palmieri v. Biggiani
...87–88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511;Hendrickson v. Philbor Motors, Inc., 102 A.D.3d 251, 255, 955 N.Y.S.2d 384;Harris v. Barbera, 96 A.D.3d 904, 906, 947 N.Y.S.2d 548;Esposito v. Noto, 90 A.D.3d 825, 935 N.Y.S.2d 105;Ofman v. Katz, 89 A.D.3d at 910, 933 N.Y.S.2d 101;Rock City Sound, Inc......
-
Ivy League Sch., Inc. v. Danick Indus., Inc.
...the facts alleged therein, like those set forth in the complaint, must also be assumed to be true (see Harris v. Barbara, 96 AD3d 904, 947 N.Y.S.2d 548 [2d Dept 2012] ; Kopelowitz & Co., Inc. v. Mann, 83 AD3d 793, 921N. Y.S.2d 108 [2d Dept 2012] ).First considered are those portions of the ......
-
Kagel-Betts v. Warren
... ... Co. of NY , ... 98 N.Y.2d 314, 326 746 N.Y.S.2d 858 [2002]; Sobel v ... Ansanelli , 98 A.D.3d 1020, 951 N.Y.S.2d 533 [2d Dept ... 2012]; Harris v Barbera , 96 A.D.3d 904, 947 N.Y.S.2d ... 548 [2d Dept 2012]). In order to qualify as "documentary ... evidence" the printed materials "must be ... ...
-
Koffler v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co.
... ... Co. of NY , 98 N.Y.2d 314, 326 746 N.Y.S.2d 858 ... [2002]; Sobel v Ansanelli , 98 A.D.3d 1020, 951 ... N.Y.S.2d 533 [2d Dept 2012]; Harris v Barbera , 96 ... A.D.3d 904, 947 N.Y.S.2d 548 [2d Dept 2012]). In order to ... qualify as "documentary evidence" the printed ... materials "must ... ...