ALEXANDER A. BENZEMANN, plf-ap, v. CITIBANK N.A. def, TODD HOUSLANGER def-res

3609. ALEXANDER A. BENZEMANN, plf-ap, v. CITIBANK N.A. def, TODD HOUSLANGER def-res — Tiajoloff & Kelly LLP, New York (Andrew L. Tiajoloff of counsel), for ap — Abrams Garfinkel Margolis Bergson, LLP, New York (Eric B. Post of counsel), for Todd Houslanger and Houslanger & Associates PLLC, res — Warshaw Burstein, LLP, New York (Scott E. Wortman and Hilary Felice Korman of counsel), for NCEP, LLC, res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia Kern, J.), entered on or about October 2, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint's causes of actions sounding in (1) negligence, (2) wrongful attachment and (3) violation of due process under the New York State Constitution against all defendants other than Citibank N.A. (Citi), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

3609. ALEXANDER A. BENZEMANN, plf-ap, v. CITIBANK N.A. def, TODD HOUSLANGER def-res — Tiajoloff & Kelly LLP, New York (Andrew L. Tiajoloff of counsel), for ap — Abrams Garfinkel Margolis Bergson, LLP, New York (Eric B. Post of counsel), for Todd Houslanger and Houslanger & Associates PLLC, res — Warshaw Burstein, LLP, New York (Scott E. Wortman and Hilary Felice Korman of counsel), for NCEP, LLC, res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia Kern, J.), entered on or about October 2, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint’s causes of actions sounding in (1) negligence, (2) wrongful attachment and (3) violation of due process under the New York State Constitution against all defendants other than Citibank N.A. (Citi), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This case arises from the restraining notices issued by defendants and the resulting restraints placed on plaintiff’s bank accounts in 2008 and in 2011. Plaintiff’s negligence claims against Todd Houslanger and Houslanger & Associates PLLC (together, the Houslanger defendants), an attorney and his law firm, fail because they do not owe a duty to plaintiff (Art Capital Group, LLC v. Neuhaus, 70 AD3d 605, 607 [1st Dept 2010]). There are no allegations of privity or near-privity between the Houslanger defendants and plaintiffs, nor are there any nonconclusory allegations of their “fraud, collusion, malice or bad faith” (Pecile v. Titan Capital Group, LLC, 96 AD3d 543, 544 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 856 [2013]). Dismissal of these claims was proper.

ALEXANDER A. BENZEMANN, plf-ap, v. CITIBANK N.A. def, TODD HOUSLANGER def-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal