Business Council of New York State, Inc. v. Cooney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Business Council of New York State, Inc. v. Cooney

86 A.D.2d 719, 446 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15274

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 86 A.D.2d 719 (Business Council of New York State, Inc. v. Cooney) 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

Business Council of New York State, Inc. v. Cooney, 86 A.D.2d 719, 446 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15274 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Cross appeals from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Cobb, J.), entered June 19, 1981 in Albany County, which granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant Costello, Cooney & Fearon’s fifth affirmative defense, denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant Costello, Cooney & Fearon’s first through fourth affirmative defenses and denied motions by both plaintiff and said defendant for summary judgment. Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant attorneys to recover for damages allegedly sustained by its predecessor in interest as a consequence of certain professional services rendered by defendants, which services allegedly constituted a conflict of interest. Subsequently, it moved for an order dismissing the first, second, third, fourth and fifth affirmative defenses in the answer of defendant Costello, Cooney & Fearon and for summary judgment on the issue of liability against Costello, Cooney & Fearon.' This defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.' All of these motions were denied except that the fifth affirmative defense at issue was dismissed, and the present cross appeals ensued. Although we have no quarrel with the reasoning in Special Term’s decision on these motions or with the provisions of the order which is the subject matter of these cross appeals, it should be noted that in Business Council ofN. Y. State v Cooney (86 AD2d 727), we have affirmed an order granting defendants leave to serve an amended answer. Under these circumstances, consideration of the motions in question here which obviously were made prior to service of the amended answer would be meaningless, and therefore, these cross appeals should be dismissed as moot. Cross appeals dismissed as moot, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Casey, JJ., concur.

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

Cross appeals from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Cobb, J.), entered June 19, 1981 in Albany County, which granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant Costello, Cooney & Fearon’s fifth affirmative defense, denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant Costello, Cooney & Fearon’s first through fourth affirmative defenses and denied motions by both plaintiff and said defendant for summary judgment. Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant attorneys to recover for damages allegedly sustained by its predecessor in interest as a consequence of certain professional services rendered by defendants, which services allegedly constituted a conflict of interest. Subsequently, it moved for an order dismissing the first, second, third, fourth and fifth affirmative defenses in the answer of defendant Costello, Cooney & Fearon and for summary judgment on the issue of liability against Costello, Cooney & Fearon.' This defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.' All of these motions were denied except that the fifth affirmative defense at issue was dismissed, and the present cross appeals ensued. Although we have no quarrel with the reasoning in Special Term’s decision on these motions or with the provisions of the order which is the subject matter of these cross appeals, it should be noted that in Business Council ofN. Y. State v Cooney (86 AD2d 727), we have affirmed an order granting defendants leave to serve an amended answer. Under these circumstances, consideration of the motions in question here which obviously were made prior to service of the amended answer would be meaningless, and therefore, these cross appeals should be dismissed as moot. Cross appeals dismissed as moot, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Casey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.2d 719, 446 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/business-council-of-new-york-state-inc-v-cooney-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack