NATA BOB, plf-res, v. STEVE COHEN def-ap

8147-8148. NATA BOB, plf-res, v. STEVE COHEN def-ap — Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Richard E. Lerner of counsel), for ap — NATA BOB, RESPONDENT PRO SE.—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 nonappealable paper. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint against defendants.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

8147-8148. NATA BOB, plf-res, v. STEVE COHEN def-ap — Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Richard E. Lerner of counsel), for ap — NATA BOB, RESPONDENT PRO SE.—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 nonappealable 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]).

NATA BOB, plf-res, v. STEVE COHEN def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal