…client’s allegations were previously addressed in a prior matter.

In Knox v Aronson, Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op 09030 [1st Dept Dec. 27, 2018], the court dismissed a legal malpractice case where the client’s allegations were previously addressed in a prior matter.  The court held:

Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiff’s complaint as against FBK, since the only claim asserted, a legal malpractice claim, is barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see Matter of Hunter, 4 N.Y.3d 260, 269, 794 N.Y.S.2d 286, 827 N.E.2d 269 [2005] ).  Plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim is based on the same conduct that was the basis of the counterclaim previously dismissed by Supreme Court Westchester County.  Res judicata bars all claims “ arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions … even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy ” (Jumax Assoc. v. 350 Cabrini Owners Corp., 110 A.D.3d 622, 623, 973 N.Y.S.2d 631 [1st Dept. 2013] [internal quotation marks omitted], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 907, 2014 WL 2922240 [2014]).  Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the dismissal in the Westchester action was on the merits.  The order addressed the merits of the counterclaim, dismissing it on the basis of the settlement and the custody decision in the matrimonial action (see Plaza PH2001 LLC v. Plaza Residential Owner LP, 98 A.D.3d 89, 98, 947 N.Y.S.2d 498 [1st Dept. 2012] ).

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

.
Previous post

Statute of Limitations for Causes of Action Alleging Legal Malpractice

The Second Department, in Potenza v Giaimo, 165 AD3d 1186, 1187 [2d Dept 2018], dismissed a client’s legal malpractice action against his attorney based upon the statute of limitations. The court held:

The statute of limitations for causes of action alleging legal malpractice is three years (see CPLR 214[6]; Alizio v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., 126 A.D.3d 733, 735, 5 N.Y.S.3d 252). A cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice accrues when the malpractice is committed (see Shumsky v. Eisenstein, 96 N.Y.2d 164, 166, 726 N.Y.S.2d 365, 750 N.E.2d 67). However, pursuant to the doctrine of continuous representation, the limitations period is tolled until the attorney’s continuing representation of the client with regard to the particular matter terminates (see Shumsky v. Eisenstein, 96 N.Y.2d at 167–168, 726 N.Y.S.2d 365, 750 N.E.2d 67; Aqua–Trol Corp. v. Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., 144 A.D.3d 956, 957, 42 N.Y.S.3d 56). For the continuous representation doctrine to apply, “ there must be clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependent relationship between the client and the attorney which often includes an attempt by the attorney to rectify an alleged act of malpractice ” (Luk Lamellen U. Kupplungbau GmbH v. Lerner, 166 A.D.2d 505, 506–507, 560 N.Y.S.2d 787).

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

Intent to deceive and Judiciary Law Section 487

The court dismissed the claims against the attorney relating to intent to deceive, holding:

Under Judiciary Law Section 487, an attorney who “[i]s guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party” is liable to the injured party for treble damages. “ [V]iolation of Judiciary Law Section 487 requires an intent to deceive, whereas a legal malpractice claim is based on negligent conduct ” (Moormann v. Perini & Hoerger, 65 A.D.3d 1106, 1108, 886 N.Y.S.2d 49 [citation omitted]; see Gorbatov v. Tsirelman, 155 A.D.3d 836, 838, 65 N.Y.S.3d 71).

Aristakesian v Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., 165 AD3d 1023, 1025 [2d Dept 2018].

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

Client alleged attorney failed to provide legal advice … immigration consequences

The First Department kept a legal malpractice case alive and partially denied the attorney’s motion to dismiss action, where the client alleged that the attorney failed to provide legal advice. In Sehgal v DiRaimondo, 165 AD3d 435, 436-37 [1st Dept 2018], the court held:

We affirm dismissal of part of the malpractice claim on alternative grounds. Plaintiff’s claim that he pleaded guilty to criminal charges in reliance on defendants’ negligent legal advice concerning the immigration consequences of the plea is barred by his guilty plea and lack of any claim of innocence (Carmel v. Lunney, 70 N.Y.2d 169, 173, 518 N.Y.S.2d 605, 511 N.E.2d 1126 [1987]; Yong Wong Park v. Wolff & Samson, P.C., 56 A.D.3d 351, 867 N.Y.S.2d 424 [1st Dept. 2008], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 704, 876 N.Y.S.2d 705, 904 N.E.2d 842 [2009] ). However, the policy underlying the rule established in Carmel v. Lunney, supra, does not require dismissal of the entirety of plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim, because the remainder of his claim that defendants failed to advise him of the potential immigration consequences of traveling outside the United States as a result of entering a guilty plea does not dispute the validity of his conviction (see generally Carmel v. Lunney, supra; see also Bass & Ullman v. Chanes, 185 A.D.2d 750, 586 N.Y.S.2d 610 [1st Dept. 1992] ). Further, plaintiff’s allegations that he relied on defendants’ faulty legal advice concerning the immigration consequences of his guilty plea in deciding to travel abroad after he pled guilty, resulting in his being detained and subjected to removal proceedings, state a valid cause of action for legal malpractice. Defendants’ other arguments present disputed factual issues concerning the standard of care and proximate cause that are not properly resolved on a motion to dismiss the complaint (see Urias v. Daniel P. Buttafuoco & Assoc., PLLC, 120 A.D.3d 1339, 1343, 992 N.Y.S.2d 552 [2d Dept. 2014] ).

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

Second Department reiterated general rule on a pre-answer motion to dismiss that letters and emails are generally not considered documentary evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1)

The Second Department reiterated the general rule on a pre-answer motion to dismiss that letters and emails are generally not considered documentary evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1). In First Choice Plumbing Corp. v Miller Law Offices, PLLC, 164 AD3d 756 [2d Dept 2018], the court held:

The plaintiffs First Choice Plumbing Corp. (hereinafter First Choice) and Malacy Plumbing Supply, Inc. (hereinafter Malacy), commenced this action to recover damages for legal malpractice against the defendant Miller Law Offices, PLLC, for its alleged negligence concerning two mechanic’s liens. The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs failed to receive full payment for plumbing services and supplies they provided on a construction project, and that the plaintiffs each filed a mechanic’s lien to recover the monies owed. The complaint further alleges that the liens were extended once, but subsequently lapsed and were extinguished by operation of law, due to the defendant’s negligence.

The defendant made a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), (5), and (7). The defendant argued, among other things, that no attorney-client relationship existed with respect to the mechanic’s liens. In support of that contention, the defendant submitted copies of the lien extensions, which were filed by nonparty Speedy Lien; a copy of a contract between First Choice and nonparty Construction Lien Consultants, LLC, to investigate, recover, and/or settle the debts owed to First Choice, as reflected in one of the mechanic’s liens; and emails and a letter. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court found *173 that the defendant submitted documentary evidence which utterly refuted the plaintiffs’ allegation that there was an attorney-client relationship between them and the defendant with respect to the liens and their extensions. Accordingly, the court granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that no attorney-client relationship existed, and denied, in effect, as academic, the remaining branches of the defendant’s motion. The plaintiffs appeal.

A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence “may be appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” (Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 N.Y.2d 314, 326, 746 N.Y.S.2d 858, 774 N.E.2d 1190; see Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511). “In order for evidence to qualify as ‘documentary,’ it must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable” (Granada Condominium III Assn. v. Palomino, 78 A.D.3d 996, 996–997, 913 N.Y.S.2d 668; see Fontanetta v. John Doe 1, 73 A.D.3d 78, 86, 898 N.Y.S.2d 569). “[J]udicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, would qualify as documentary evidence in the proper case” (Fontanetta v. John Doe 1, 73 A.D.3d at 84–85, 898 N.Y.S.2d 569 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). “Conversely, letters, emails, and affidavits fail to meet the requirements for documentary evidence” (25–01 Newkirk Ave., LLC v. Everest Natl. Ins. Co., 127 A.D.3d 850, 851, 7 N.Y.S.3d 325; see Phillips v. Taco Bell Corp., 152 A.D.3d 806, 807, 60 N.Y.S.3d 67; Prott v. Lewin & Baglio, LLP, 150 A.D.3d 908, 909, 55 N.Y.S.3d 98; Gawrych v. Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan, 148 A.D.3d 681, 682, 48 N.Y.S.3d 450).

Here, the emails and letters submitted in support of the defendant’s motion were not documentary evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1). To the extent that the other evidence submitted was documentary, that evidence did not conclusively establish the absence of an attorney-client relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant with respect to the liens and their extensions. Thus, the Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint on this ground.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

…plaintiff could not establish liability because he could not prove the underlying action.

In Blair v Loduca, 164 AD3d 637, 638-40 [2d Dept 2018], the Second Department considered the argument made by the defendant-attorney sued for legal malpractice that the plaintiff could not establish liability because he could not prove the underlying action.

“ To establish the required element of causation in a legal malpractice action, ‘ a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action … but for the lawyer’s negligence ’ ” (Balan v. Rooney, 152 A.D.3d 733, 733, 61 N.Y.S.3d 29, quoting Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438, 442, 835 N.Y.S.2d 534, 867 N.E.2d 385; see Detoni v. McMinkens, 147 A.D.3d 1018, 48 N.Y.S.3d 208). The only issue raised in the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was whether the plaintiff could have prevailed in the underlying action against the property owner.

In a premises liability case, a defendant property owner who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the allegedly *639 dangerous or defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence (see Martino v. Patmar Props., Inc., 123 A.D.3d 890, 890, 999 N.Y.S.2d 449; Kruger v. Donzelli Realty Corp., 111 A.D.3d 897, 975 N.Y.S.2d 689; Smith v. Christ’s First Presbyt. Church of Hempstead, 93 A.D.3d 839, 941 N.Y.S.2d 211; Meyers v. Big Six Towers, Inc., 85 A.D.3d 877, 925 N.Y.S.2d 607). “ Under the so-called ‘ storm in progress ’ rule, a property owner will not be held responsible for accidents occurring as a result of the accumulation of snow and ice on its premises until an adequate period of time has passed following the cessation of the storm to allow the owner an opportunity to ameliorate the hazards caused by the storm ” (Marchese v. Skenderi, 51 A.D.3d 642, 642, 856 N.Y.S.2d 680; see Solazzo v. New York City Tr. Auth., 6 N.Y.3d 734, 810 N.Y.S.2d 121, 843 N.E.2d 748; Dumela–Felix v. FGP W. St., LLC, 135 A.D.3d 809, 810, 22 N.Y.S.3d 896; McCurdy v. Kyma Holdings, LLC, 109 A.D.3d 799, 799, 971 N.Y.S.2d 137; Smith v. Christ’s First Presbyt. Church of Hempstead, 93 A.D.3d 839, 840, 941 N.Y.S.2d 211; Weller v. Paul, 91 A.D.3d 945, 947, 938 N.Y.S.2d 152; Mazzella v. City of New York, 72 A.D.3d 755, 756, 899 N.Y.S.2d 291). If a storm is ongoing, and a property owner elects to remove snow, the owner must do so with reasonable care or it could be held liable for creating a hazardous condition or exacerbating a natural hazard created by the storm (see Kantor v. Leisure Glen Homeowners Assn., Inc., 95 A.D.3d 1177, 944 N.Y.S.2d 640; Petrocelli v. Marrelli Dev. Corp., 31 A.D.3d 623, 817 N.Y.S.2d 913; Salvanti v. Sunset Indus. Park Assoc., 27 A.D.3d 546, 813 N.Y.S.2d 110; Chaudhry v. East Buffet & Rest., 24 A.D.3d 493, 808 N.Y.S.2d 239). In such an instance, that property owner, if moving for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case, must demonstrate in support of his or her motion that the snow removal efforts he or she undertook neither created nor exacerbated the allegedly hazardous condition which caused the injured plaintiff to fall (see Kantor v. Leisure Glen Homeowners Assn., Inc., 95 A.D.3d at 1177, 944 N.Y.S.2d 640).

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this action, the defendants submitted the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, the deposition testimony of the building’s doorman, the affidavit of a meteorologist, and certified climatological data. These submissions demonstrated that a storm was in progress at the time of the accident, that there was no preexisting ice on the ground when the storm commenced, and that the property owner did not create or exacerbate the allegedly dangerous condition created by the storm in progress (see Aronov v. St. Vincent’s Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 145 A.D.3d 648, 649, 43 N.Y.S.3d 99; **135 Kantor v. Leisure Glen Homeowners Assn., Inc., 95 A.D.3d at 1177, 944 N.Y.S.2d 640; Ali v. Village of Pleasantville, 95 A.D.3d 796, 797, 943 N.Y.S.2d 582). Since the defendants made a prima facie showing that the storm in progress rule applied *640 to the underlying action, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to show that something other than the precipitation from the storm in progress caused the accident (see Baker v. St. Christopher’s Inn, Inc., 138 A.D.3d 652, 653, 29 N.Y.S.3d 439; Burniston v. Ranric Enters. Corp., 134 A.D.3d 973, 974, 21 N.Y.S.3d 694; Meyers v. Big Six Towers, Inc., 85 A.D.3d 877, 877–878, 925 N.Y.S.2d 607; Alers v. La Bonne Vie Org., 54 A.D.3d 698, 699, 863 N.Y.S.2d 750). The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint because the plaintiff could not have prevailed in the underlying action against the property owner (see Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d at 442, 835 N.Y.S.2d 534, 867 N.E.2d 385; Balan v. Rooney, 152 A.D.3d at 733, 61 N.Y.S.3d 29; Detoni v. McMinkens, 147 A.D.3d at 1018, 48 N.Y.S.3d 208).

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next Post
Previous post

Judiciary Law Section 487

In an action involving Judiciary Law Section 487, the court considered the issue as to what type of matter fits into the definition in the statute, holding:

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law Section 487 was not duplicative of the cause of action alleging legal malpractice. “ A violation of Judiciary Law Section 487 requires an intent to deceive, whereas a legal malpractice claim is based on negligent conduct ” (Moormann v Perini & Hoerger, 65 AD3d 1106, 1108 [2009] [citation omitted]; see Lauder v Goldhamer, 122 AD3d 908, 911 [2014]; Sabalza v Salgado, 85 AD3d 436, 438 [2011]).

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law Section 487. A chronic extreme pattern of legal delinquency is not a basis for liability pursuant to Judiciary Law Section 487 (see Dupree v Voorhees, 102 AD3d 912, 913 [2013]). Further, the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts demonstrating that the defendant attorneys had the “ intent to deceive the court or any party ” (Judiciary Law Section 487 [1]; see Schiller v Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 759 [2014]; Agostini v Sobol, 304 AD2d 395, 396 [2003]). Allegations regarding an act of deceit or intent to deceive must be stated with particularity (see CPLR 3016 [b]; Facebook, Inc. v DLA Piper LLP [US], 134 AD3d 610, 615 [2015]; Armstrong v Blank Rome LLP, 126 AD3d 427 [2015]; Putnam County Temple & Jewish Ctr., Inc. v Rhinebeck Sav. Bank, 87 AD3d 1118, 1120 [2011]). That the defendants commenced the underlying action on behalf of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs failed to prevail in that action does not provide a basis for a cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law Section 487 to recover the legal fees incurred.

Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 164 AD3d 635, 637 [2d Dept 2018]

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action…

In Garcia v Polsky, Shouldice & Rosen, P.C., 161 AD3d 828 [2d Dept 2018], the Second Department held that the law firm’s motion to dismiss its former client’s lawsuit for legal malpractice was properly denied by the Supreme Court.

” …On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action… “

“ On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ” (Shah v. Exxis, Inc., 138 A.D.3d 970, 971, 31 N.Y.S.3d 512; see Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 N.Y.2d at 326, 746 N.Y.S.2d 858, 774 N.E.2d 1190; Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d at 87–88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511). “ In opposition to such a motion, a plaintiff may submit affidavits to remedy defects in the complaint and preserve inartfully pleaded, but potentially meritorious claims ” (Cron v. Hargro Fabrics, 91 N.Y.2d 362, 366, 670 N.Y.S.2d 973, 694 N.E.2d 56 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Nilazra, Inc. v. Karakus, Inc., 136 A.D.3d 994, 995, 25 N.Y.S.3d 650). “ Where evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one, and unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, dismissal should not eventuate ” (Rabos v. R & R Bagels & Bakery, Inc., 100 A.D.3d 849, 851–852, 955 N.Y.S.2d 109; see Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 274–275, 401 N.Y.S.2d 182, 372 N.E.2d 17).

5   “ Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, *427 or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove its claims, of course, plays no part in the determination of a prediscovery CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss ” (Shaya B. Pac., LLC v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 38 A.D.3d 34, 38, 827 N.Y.S.2d 231; see EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 N.Y.3d 11, 19, 799 N.Y.S.2d 170, 832 N.E.2d 26).

6 7   “ In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney ‘failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession’ and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages ” (Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438, 442, 835 N.Y.S.2d 534, 867 N.E.2d 385, quoting McCoy v. Feinman, 99 N.Y.2d 295, 301, 755 N.Y.S.2d 693, 785 N.E.2d 714). “ To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages, but for the lawyer’s negligence ” (Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d at 442, 835 N.Y.S.2d 534, 867 N.E.2d 385).

8   Here, the law firm submitted documentary evidence in support of the motion establishing that its representation of the plaintiff was limited to his Workers’ Compensation claim. That submission did not utterly refute the plaintiff’s allegations, as augmented by his affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion, that the law firm gave him inaccurate legal advice. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the cause of action alleging legal malpractice insofar as asserted against the law firm.

Moreover, the complaint, as augmented by the plaintiff’s affidavit, sufficiently pleaded a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice against the law firm. The evidentiary submissions did not show that the material facts claimed by the plaintiff to be facts were not facts at all and that no significant dispute exists regarding them. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the cause of action alleging legal malpractice insofar as asserted against the law firm.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

With limited exceptions, party seeking to sue an attorney for legal malpractice must prove he was a client.

With very limited exceptions, a party seeking to sue an attorney for legal malpractice must prove that he was the client of the attorney.

In Barrett v Goldstein, 161 AD3d 472, 473 [1st Dept 2018], the court dismissed the case, finding that the attorney-defendant was not the plaintiff’s attorney concerning drafting an agreement. The court specifically held:

“ The documentary evidence conclusively establishes that she was not acting as plaintiff’s attorney. Rather, the terms of the post-nuptial agreement which plaintiff now challenges, as well as numerous emails between plaintiff, his former wife, and Goldstein, reflect the parties’ understanding and agreement that Goldstein would draft the post-nuptial agreement, and the spouses’ separate counsel would review it before execution. Accordingly, plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged an attorney-client relationship between him and Goldstein, or that she was negligent and that her negligence was the “but for” cause of his alleged injuries. ”

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

…Applicable to the particular matter in which malpractice is claimed

The statute of limitations in legal malpractice cases can be tolled when there has been continuous representation of the client by the attorney. However, it is applicable only to the particular matter in which malpractice is claimed.

See, Davis v Cohen & Gresser, LLP, 160 AD3d 484, 486 [1st Dept 2018], in which the court held:

“ the continuous representation doctrine does not apply where there is only a vague “ ongoing representation ” (Johnson v. Proskauer Rose LLP, 129 A.D.3d 59, 68, 9 N.Y.S.3d 201 [1st Dept. 2015] ). For the doctrine to apply, the representation must be specifically related to the subject matter underlying the malpractice claim, and there must be a mutual understanding of need for further services in connection with that same subject matter (see Shumsky, 96 N.Y.2d at 168, 726 N.Y.S.2d 365, 750 N.E.2d 67; see also CLP Leasing, 12 A.D.3d at 227, 784 N.Y.S.2d 535). ”

– R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post