Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nata Bob, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Steve Cohen

New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department


April 16, 2013

NATA BOB, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
STEVE COHEN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Bob v Cohen

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on April 16, 2013 Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Renwick, Richter, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered May 11, 2011, which denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered July 14, 2011, which denied defendants' motion to reargue, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a non-appealable paper. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint against defendants.

Defendants' motion to dismiss was not untimely, as found by the motion court, since the parties had stipulated, both orally and in writing, to extend defendants' time to "respond" to the complaint to January 31, 2011, and defendants had served and filed their motion to dismiss by that date (see DiIorio v Antonelli, 240 AD2d 537 [2d Dept 1997]; Del Valle v Office of Dist. Attorney of Bronx County, 215 AD2d 258 [1st Dept 1995]; CPLR 320[a]; 3211[e]; compare McGee v Dunn, 75 AD3d 624, 625 [2d Dept 2010]). On the merits, defendants were entitled to dismissal of this legal malpractice action commenced by their former client on res judicata grounds. The Workers Compensation Board's award of legal fees to defendants, imposed as a lien against the ultimate award of compensation to plaintiff (see Workers' Compensation Law § 24), precludes plaintiff's present claim that defendants represented him negligently, a claim that could have been raised in opposition to defendants' fee application (see e.g. Lusk v Weinstein, 85 AD3d 445 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 709 [2011]; Zito v Fischbein Badillo Wagner Harding, 80 AD3d 520 [1st Dept 2011]).

In view of the foregoing, we need not consider defendants' remaining argument. The Decision and Order of this Court entered herein on October 2, 2012 is hereby recalled and vacated (see M-5183 decided simultaneously herewith).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: APRIL 16, 2013

CLERK

20130416

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.