Behrins & Behrins, P.C. v. Chan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Behrins & Behrins, P.C. v. Chan

305 A.D.2d 348, 758 N.Y.S.2d 527

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 5, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 348 (Behrins & Behrins, P.C. v. Chan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Behrins & Behrins, P.C. v. Chan, 305 A.D.2d 348, 758 N.Y.S.2d 527 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover legal fees, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated April 30, 2002, which denied her motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, substantial, not strict, compliance with 22 NYCRR part 1400 et seq., is required (see Mulcahy v Mulcahy, 285 AD2d 587 [2001]). The defendant’s documentary evidence submitted in support of her motion did not make out a prima facie case that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to substantially comply with 22 NYCRR part 1400 et seq. Accordingly, denial of the motion was proper (see CPLR 3211 [a] [1]; European Am. Bank v Miller, 265 AD2d 374 [1999]). Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover legal fees, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated April 30, 2002, which denied her motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, substantial, not strict, compliance with 22 NYCRR part 1400 et seq., is required (see Mulcahy v Mulcahy, 285 AD2d 587 [2001]). The defendant’s documentary evidence submitted in support of her motion did not make out a prima facie case that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to substantially comply with 22 NYCRR part 1400 et seq. Accordingly, denial of the motion was proper (see CPLR 3211 [a] [1]; European Am. Bank v Miller, 265 AD2d 374 [1999]). Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 348, 758 N.Y.S.2d 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/behrins-behrins-pc-v-chan-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack