Kinberg v. Opinsky

Decision Date22 May 2008
Docket Number3708.
PartiesSARA KINBERG, Appellant, v. HEIDI OPINSKY, Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

A 2003 order denying defendant's prior motion for, inter alia, pre-answer summary judgment (CPLR 3211 [c]), expressly reserved substantive issues for a later time. Accordingly, defendant showed sufficient cause for this motion under CPLR 3212 (see Varsity Tr. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 300 AD2d 38, 39 [2002]). The record shows that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant committed negligent acts but for which plaintiff's 1992 matrimonial action, which plaintiff ultimately settled in 2000 after having discharged defendant, would have ended more favorably to her (see e.g. Tanel v Kreitzer & Vogelman, 293 AD2d 420, 421 [2002]). Moreover, in two causes of action, plaintiff fails to plead any demand for compensatory damages, and her demands for punitive damages are unsupported by evidence that would warrant such relief (see Gamiel v Curtis & Riess-Curtis, P.C., 16 AD3d 140, 141 [2005]). Plaintiff's cause of action alleging that defendant violated Judiciary Law § 487 is not viable, as the requisite evidence of a "chronic and extreme pattern of legal delinquency" is not found in the record (see Nason v Fisher, 36 AD3d 486, 487 [2007], quoting Solow Mgt. Corp. v Seltzer, 18 AD3d 399, 400 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 712 [2005]).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Nardelli, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Burton v. Lupu, Index No. 600739/2010
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • August 8, 2012
    ...the statutorily required intent to deceive. Kaminsky v. Herrick, Feinstein LLP, 59 A.D.3d 1, 13 (1st Dep't 2008); Kinberg v. Opinsky, 51 A.D.3d 548, 549 (1st Dep't 2008); Nason v. Fisher, 36 A.D.3d 486, 487 (1st Dep't 2007); Solow Mat. Corp. v. Seltzer, 18 A.D.3d 399, 400 (1st Dep't 2005). ......
  • McGivney v. Sobel, Ross, Fliegel & Suss, LLP
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • January 9, 2012
    ...the statutorily required intent to deceive. Kaminsky v. Herrick, Feinstein LLP, 59 A.D.3d 1, 13(1st Dep't 2008); Kinberg v. Opinsky, 51 A.D.3d 548, 549 (1st Dep't 2008); Nason v. Fisher, 36 A.D.3d 486, 487 (1st Dep't 2007); Solow Mgt. Corp. v. Seltzer, 18 A.D.3d 399, 400 (1st Dep't 2005). S......
  • Cohen v. Kachroo
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 13, 2014
    ...the matter if plaintiff did not execute an addendum to the retainer, to defendants' benefit ( see e.g. Kinberg v. Opinsky, 51 A.D.3d 548, 549, 859 N.Y.S.2d 129 [1st Dept.2008] ). The allegedly false representations in two courts, and the coercive threats to plaintiff in an attempt to elicit......
  • Pannone v. Silberstein
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 3, 2014
    ...dismissed inasmuch as the record does not establish a “chronic and extreme pattern of legal delinquency” ( Kinberg v. Opinsky, 51 A.D.3d 548, 549, 859 N.Y.S.2d 129 [1st Dept.2008] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). The breach of contract cause of action, which is based on defendants' all......
  • 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