Espinoza v. Mark Suzman (Gates Found.)
This text of 75 Misc. 3d 143(A) (Espinoza v. Mark Suzman (Gates Found.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Espinoza v Mark Suzman (Gates Found.) (2022 NY Slip Op 50624(U)) [*1]
| Espinoza v Mark Suzman (Gates Found.) |
| 2022 NY Slip Op 50624(U) [75 Misc 3d 143(A)] |
| Decided on July 1, 2022 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on July 1, 2022
PRESENT: : MICHELLE WESTON, J.P., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, CHEREÉ A. BUGGS, JJ
2021-809 K C
against
Mark Suzman (Gates Foundation), Respondent.
Bryan Espinoza, appellant pro se. K & L Gates, LLP (Joanna A. Diakos of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Nicholas W. Moyne, J.), entered October 25, 2021. The order granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed as moot.
The summons with endorsed complaint in this action states that plaintiff is seeking to recover the total principal sum of $95,600 for "Personal Injuries," "Failure to provide proper services," "Loss of time for work," "Dishonored Check," and "Monies Due." Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and (8). By order entered October 25, 2021, the Civil Court (Nicholas W. Moyne, J.) granted defendant's motion finding that "[p]laintiff did not serve the defendant pursuant to the CPLR." On November 4, 2021, plaintiff filed a second action against defendant in the Civil Court (index No. CV-026562-21/KI), in which the endorsed complaint set forth the same five claims as the endorsed complaint in the instant action. Defendant accepted service of the second summons with endorsed complaint. Plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal from the October 25, 2021 order on November 5, 2021.
A court "may take judicial notice of undisputed court records and files" (Matter of [*2]Khatibi v Weill, 8 AD3d 485, 485 [2004]; see Matter of Allen v Strough, 301 AD2d 11, 18 [2002]; Ptasznik v Schultz, 247 AD2d 197 [1998]). By instituting the second action, of which we take judicial notice, plaintiff effectively abandoned the instant action, thereby mooting the appeal from the Civil Court's October 25, 2021 order (see Jarmuth v Wagner, 190 AD3d 527 [2021]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Torrales, 186 AD2d 649 [1992]; Sherrill v Grayco Bldrs., 99 AD2d 965, 966-967 [1984], affd 64 NY2d 261 [1985]).
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as moot.
WESTON, J.P., TOUSSAINT and BUGGS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 1, 2022
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
75 Misc. 3d 143(A), 2022 NY Slip Op 50624(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/espinoza-v-mark-suzman-gates-found-nyappterm-2022.