Stein v. Davidow, Davidow, Siegel & Stern, LLP
| Decision Date | 19 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2019–06620,Index No. 612917/18 |
| Citation | 127 N.Y.S.3d 279 (Mem),186 A.D.3d 774 |
| Parties | Douglas STEIN, etc., et al., Appellants, v. DAVIDOW, DAVIDOW, SIEGEL & STERN, LLP, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
186 A.D.3d 774
127 N.Y.S.3d 279 (Mem)
Douglas STEIN, etc., et al., Appellants,
v.
DAVIDOW, DAVIDOW, SIEGEL & STERN, LLP, et al., Respondents.
2019–06620
Index No. 612917/18
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—February 14, 2020
August 19, 2020
Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, New York, NY, for appellants.
Kritzer Law Group, Smithtown, N.Y. (Karl Zamurs of counsel), for respondents.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (John H. Rouse, J.), dated May 3, 2019. The order granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations and denied the plaintiffs' cross motion pursuant to CPLR 306–b for an extension of time to serve the defendants with the summons and complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In 2009, the plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendants to recover damages for legal malpractice (hereinafter the 2009 action), alleging, inter alia, that the decedent Claire W. Stein retained the defendants in connection with estate planning work between 2004 and 2007. By order dated March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court directed dismissal of the 2009 action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27(b) based on the plaintiffs' failure to appear at a court conference, and by order dated December 23, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to vacate their default in appearing at the conference. By decision and order dated January 10, 2018, this Court affirmed the December 23, 2014, order (see Stein v. Davidow, Davidow, Siegel & Stern, LLP , 157 A.D.3d 741, 741, 68 N.Y.S.3d 497 ).
The plaintiffs commenced this action on July 6, 2018, alleging causes of action sounding in legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty based upon the same alleged transactions or occurrences as those alleged in the 2009 action. The plaintiffs served a copy of the summons and complaint in the instant action upon the defendant Davidow, Davidow, Siegel & Stern, LLP, on September 13, 2018, and served copies of the summons...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Schleger v. Jurcsak
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Derissaint
...Here, the defendant was not served within the six-month period after the 2013 action was dismissed (see Stein v. Davidow, Davidow, Siegel & Stern, LLP, 186 A.D.3d 774, 127 N.Y.S.3d 279 ; cf. Goodman v. Skanska USA Civ., Inc., 169 A.D.3d 1010, 95 N.Y.S.3d 243 ). Nor was the plaintiff entitle......
-
Delzotti v. Bowers
...action and that service upon defendant is effected within such six-month period" (see Stein v Davidow, Davidow, Siegel & Stern, LLP, 186 A.D.3d 774, 775 [emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted]). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the prior action terminated upon the entry of th......
- U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Hoffman