Lane v. Lane
| Decision Date | 01 July 1991 |
| Citation | 572 N.Y.S.2d 14,175 A.D.2d 103 |
| Parties | Beverly LANE, etc., et al., Appellants, v. William LANE, et al., Defendants; Richard Scheer, Proposed Intervenor-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Edelman & Edelman, P.C., Brooklyn (David M. Schuller, of counsel), for appellants.
Mound, Cotton & Wollan, New York City (Arthur N. Brook and Lori Cohen, of counsel), for intervenor-respondent.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and KOOPER, HARWOOD and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated November 30, 1989, which (a) granted Richard Scheer's motion to intervene in this action and to vacate the judgment entered November 15, 1988, and (b) vacated two orders of the same court (Cohen, J.), dated October 15, 1987, and October 28, 1987, respectively, and (2) from an order of the same court, dated February 7, 1990, which denied the plaintiffs' motion, inter alia, for renewal.
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
In February 1985 the infant plaintiff, Andrew Lane, was injured in a fire which occurred in residential premises located on Bushwick Avenue in Brooklyn. The infant's mother, the plaintiff Beverly Lane, commenced this personal injury action on behalf of her son and herself against the owners of the building. The building was owned by the plaintiff's uncle William Lane, the plaintiff's aunt Alice Lane, the plaintiff's father J.W. Lane, and the Estate of the plaintiff's grandmother Gertrude Lane. Investors Insurance Company of America (hereinafter Investors) had issued a policy of insurance insuring Gertrude Lane as an owner of the premises and that policy was still in effect at the time of the fire. Investors agreed to represent the Estate in this action and informed the other three defendants that Investors would not represent them since they were not insured under the policy. Richard Scheer was Investors' house counsel. The other three defendants never retained counsel nor appeared in the action and subsequently, a default judgment of approximately $12,000,000 was entered against them. The action against the Estate was settled for the amount of the policy.
In July 1989 the defendants William and Alice Lane assigned to the plaintiff, Beverly Lane, and the infant plaintiff Andrew Lane, any claims or causes of action which they might have against Richard Scheer. In August 1989 the plaintiffs commenced the instant action to recover damages for legal malpractice against Scheer alleging that Scheer had agreed to represent William and Alice Lane in the personal injury action and then negligently failed to appear or submit an answer on behalf of those defendants. The malpractice complaint further alleged that the $12,000,000 default judgment was obtained by reason of Scheer's alleged malpractice.
Scheer then moved to intervene in the personal injury action and to vacate the default judgment entered against the defendants William Lane, Alice Lane, and J.W. Lane. Those defendants did not join in this motion. The court, in the order appealed from dated November 30, 1989, granted Scheer's motion to intervene and to vacate the default judgment. The court also vacated the prior order dated October 15, 1987, which had deemed the affidavits of service of the summons to have been filed within 20 days after completion of service, and also vacated the prior order dated October 28, 1987, which had severed the action against the Estate of Gertrude Lane from the action against the other three defendants and granted leave to enter the default judgment. The plaintiffs moved to renew the motion to intervene and to vacate the default judgment and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bond v. Giebel
...is that some legitimate interest of the moving party will be served and that judicial assistance will avoid injustice” ( Lane v. Lane, 175 A.D.2d 103, 105, 572 N.Y.S.2d 14 [1991] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ). In our view, that purpose will be served under the particular......
-
Stasiak v. Forlenza
...1303, 849 N.Y.S.2d 316; F & C Gen. Contrs. Corp. v. Atlantic Mut. Mtge. Corp., 202 A.D.2d 629, 630, 612 N.Y.S.2d 871; Lane v. Lane, 175 A.D.2d 103, 105, 572 N.Y.S.2d 14). The Supreme Court also erred in issuing the judgment entered July 8, 2009. At the time of the inquest, the wife had alre......
-
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Peters
...sentence.Unlike other courts that have vacated default judgments or orders pursuant to 53 N.Y.S.3d 465CPLR 5015(a) (see Lane v. Lane, 175 A.D.2d 103, 572 N.Y.S.2d 14 [2d Dept.1991] [holding that it was in the interest of justice to vacate a default that was allegedly obtained through collus......
-
Berlin v. Schlotthauer
...he has standing to challenge the validity of the judgment underlying the sale on which that title is premised (see, Lane v. Lane, 175 A.D.2d 103, 572 N.Y.S.2d 14; but see, Jakobleff v. Jakobleff, 108 A.D.2d 725, 484 N.Y.S.2d 892; cf., Citibank v. Keller, 133 A.D.2d 63, 64, 518 N.Y.S.2d 409)......