Parola, Gross & Marino, P.C. v. Susskind

• Decision Date: 18 September 2007
• Docket Number: 2006-06486.
• Citation: Parola, Gross & Marino, P.C. v. Susskind, 43 A.D.3d 1020, 843 N.Y.S.2d 104, 2007 NY Slip Op 6850 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: PAROLA, GROSS & MARINO, P.C., Respondent, v. HORST SUSSKIND, Appellant.

43 A.D.3d 1020

843 N.Y.S.2d 104

2007 NY Slip Op 06850

PAROLA, GROSS & MARINO, P.C., Respondent, v. HORST SUSSKIND, Appellant.

2006-06486.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

Decided September 18, 2007.

In an action, inter alia, to recover legal fees, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brennan, J.), entered May 18, 2006, which, among other things, denied that branch of his motion which was for leave to renew his opposition to the plaintiff's prior motion to dismiss his counterclaims pursuant to CPLR 3211, and upon reargument, adhered to the original determination in an order entered September 15, 2005, granting the plaintiff's prior motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff undertook to represent the defendant in a matrimonial action in which the Supreme Court had already entered a preclusion order against the defendant. That representation concluded when the plaintiff's motion for leave to withdraw as counsel was granted. The matrimonial action was later settled. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover legal fees allegedly due it. The defendant counterclaimed alleging legal malpractice and seeking disgorgement of the legal fees that he had paid to the plaintiff. By order entered September 15, 2005, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff `s motion to dismiss the counterclaims pursuant to CPLR 3211. Subsequently, the defendant moved, inter alia, for leave to renew and reargue his opposition to the plaintiff's motion to dismiss. By order entered May 18, 2006, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was for leave to renew, and upon reargument, adhered to its original determination in the order entered September 15, 2005.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was for leave to renew, as he failed to present new facts that would change the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). Moreover, upon reargument, the court properly adhered to the original determination granting the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaims pursuant to CPLR 3211.

In reviewing a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action, "the facts as alleged in the complaint must be accepted as true, the plaintiff is accorded the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and the court's function is to determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" (Kupersmith v Winged Foot Golf Club, Inc., 38 AD3d 847, 848 [2007], citing Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; see Hartman v Morganstern, 28 AD3d 423, 424 [2006]). However, bare legal conclusions and factual claims which are flatly contradicted by the record are not presumed to be true (see Morone v Morone, 50 NY2d 481 [1980]; Kupersmith v Winged Foot...