Jones Morrison, LLP, formerly known as Jones Sledzik Garneau & Nardone, LLP, respondent,
Galit Schloss, appellant. Index No. 58442/14
- September 26, 2017
Huebner & Associates, P.C., Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.
Morrison, LLP, Scarsdale, NY (Marcy Blake and Stephen J.
Jones of counsel), respondent pro se.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P. CHERYL E. CHAMBERS COLLEEN D. DUFFY
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
action for a renewal judgment pursuant to CPLR 5014, which
was commenced by motion for summary judgment in lieu of
complaint, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the
Supreme Court, Westchester County (Jamieson, J.), dated
January 6, 2015, which granted the plaintiffs motion and
denied the defendant's cross motion, inter alia, to
vacate the original judgment, (2) an amended order of the
same court dated February 18, 2015, which added statutory
interest to the amount of the renewal judgment, and (3) a
renewal judgment of the same court dated March 27, 2015,
which, upon the amended order dated February 18, 2015, is in
favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the
principal sum of $84, 119.17, plus interest from November 17,
that the appeals from the order and amended order are
dismissed; and it is further, ORDERED that the renewal
judgment is affirmed; and it is further, ORDERED that one
bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
appeals from the order dated January 6, 2015 (hereinafter the
January 2015 order), and the amended order dated February 18,
2015 (hereinafter the amended 2015 order), must be dismissed
because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with
the entry of the renewal judgment (see Matter of
Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). Moreover, the appeal from the
January 2015 order must be dismissed as that order was
superseded by the amended 2015 order. The issues raised on
the appeal from the amended 2015 order are brought up for
review and have been considered on the appeal from the
renewal judgment (see CPLR 5501[a]).
action arises out of the entry of a judgment in November 2004
(hereinafter the original judgment), in favor of the
plaintiff and against the defendant for unpaid legal fees in
the sum of $97, 119.17 for services the plaintiff had
performed on behalf of the defendant in a matrimonial action.
This Court dismissed the defendant's appeal from the
original judgment as untimely (see Jones Sledzik Garneau
& Nardone, LLP v Schloss, 37 A.D.3d 417).
to the dismissal of her appeal, the defendant commenced an
action against the plaintiff seeking damages for, inter alia,
fraud. In July 2008, the Supreme Court, Westchester County
(Loehr, J.), granted dismissal of the action on the merits,
and this Court affirmed that determination (see Schloss v
Jones, 67 A.D.3d 770).
2014, the plaintiff commenced this action by summary judgment
in lieu of complaint, seeking a renewal judgment for the
unsatisfied portion of the original judgment. The defendant
cross-moved, inter alia, to vacate the original judgment. The
Supreme Court, Westchester County (Jamieson, J.), granted the
plaintiff s motion and denied the defendant's cross
motion, noting that the arguments raised by the defendant had
been raised in the prior actions. These appeals ensued.
Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for
summary judgment and entered a renewal judgment pursuant to
CPLR 5014(1). The plaintiff established its prima facie
entitlement to a renewal judgment as a matter of law by
showing: (1) the existence of the original judgment; (2) that
the defendant was the judgment debtor; (3) that the original
judgment was docketed at least nine years prior to the
commencement of this action; and (4) that the original
judgment remains partially or completely unsatisfied (see
Rose v Gulizia, 104 A.D.3d 757, 758; Premier
Capital, LLC v Best Traders, Inc., 88 A.D.3d 677, 678;
Schiff Food Prods. Co., Inc. vM&M Import Export,
84 A.D.3d 1346, 1348).
opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of
fact. Her arguments in opposition to the motion and in
support of her cross motion were or could have been made in
the prior actions, and are therefore barred by res judicata
(see O 'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353,
357; Schloss v Jones, 67 A.D.3d at 770; Matter
of City of New York v Schmitt, 50 A.D.3d 1032, 1033).
defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
the Supreme Court properly ...