Snolis v. Clare
| Decision Date | 22 February 2011 |
| Parties | Tara SNOLIS, et al., respondents-appellants, v. Timothy W. CLARE, defendant, William J. Poisson, etc., et al., appellants-respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
81 A.D.3d 923
Tara SNOLIS, et al., respondents-appellants,
v.
Timothy W. CLARE, defendant,
William J. Poisson, etc., et al., appellants-respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb. 22, 2011.
L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Peter L. Contini and Daniel M. Maunz of counsel), for appellants-respondents.
Cerussi & Gunn, P.C. (Thomas Torto and Jason Levine, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for respondents-appellants.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice and breach of contract, the defendants William J. Poisson and Poisson & Hackett, Esqs., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated August 17, 2009, as denied, as untimely, that branch of their cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, and that branch of the cross motion of the defendants William J. Poisson and Poisson & Hackett, Esqs., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants William J. Poisson and Poisson & Hackett, Esqs.
The plaintiff Tara Snolis was involved in a motor vehicle accident in May 1999 with a car driven by John Biondo. Tara Snolis and the plaintiff Albert Snolis, suing derivatively, subsequently commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries against Biondo (hereinafter the personal injury action). In April 2002 the defendants William J. Poisson and Poisson & Hackett, Esqs. (hereinafter together the defendants), were substituted as the plaintiffs' counsel in the personal injury action. When Biondo was deposed in February 2003, long after the expiration of the statute of limitations, it was learned for the first time that he had leased the car he drove on the day of the accident. In April 2003 the defendants were provided with documentary evidence showing that the vehicle was actually owned by American Suzuki Automotive Credit (hereinafter the owner) at the time of the accident. The defendants did not move for leave to amend the complaint to add the owner as a defendant, and filed a note of issue in September 2003. In May 2004 the defendants were replaced by different counsel, who immediately moved for leave to amend the complaint to add the new defendants. That motion was denied.
The plaintiffs thereafter commenced the instant action to recover damages for legal malpractice and breach of contract. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on their legal malpractice cause of action insofar as asserted against the defendants, and the defendants cross-moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The Supreme Court denied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dempsey v. Chaves & Perlowitz LLP
...cause of action (see AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 N.Y.3d 428, 834 N.Y.S.2d 705 [2007]; Leder v Spiegel, supra; Snolis v Clare, 81 A.D.3d 923, 917 N.Y.S.2d 299 [2d Dept 2011]). It is undisputed that Section 1031 provides a method for the deferral of any capital gains tax on the ap......
-
Dempsey v. Chaves & Perlowitz LLP
... ... v ... Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 N.Y.3d 428, 834 N.Y.S.2d ... 705 [2007]; Leder v Spiegel, supra; Snolis v ... Clare, 81 A.D.3d 923, 917 N.Y.S.2d 299 [2d Dept 2011]) ... It is undisputed that Section 1031 provides a method for the ... ...
-
Quantum Corporate Funding, Ltd. v. Ellis
...a proximate cause of actual and ascertainable damages (see Bells v. Foster, 83 A.D.3d 876, 877, 922 N.Y.S.2d 124 ; Snolis v. Clare, 81 A.D.3d 923, 925, 917 N.Y.S.2d 299 ; cf. Parklex Assoc. v. Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer, LLP, 118 A.D.3d 968, 970, 989 N.Y.S.2d 60 ). Accordingly, the......
-
Hyatt v. Queens W. Dev. Corp.
...Ins. Co. of New York v. Nat'l Grange Mut. Ins. Co. , 84 AD3d 737, 922 N.Y.S.2d 522 (2nd Dept. 2011) ; Snolis v. Clare , 81 AD3d 923, 917 N.Y.S.2d 299 (1st Dept. 2011) ; Grande v. Peteroy , 39 AD3d 590, 833 N.Y.S.2d 615 (2nd Dept. 2007). In this case, the plaintiff filed the note of issue on......