Galil, LLC v. Scott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Galil, LLC v. Scott

61 A.D.3d 820, 876 N.Y.S.2d 892

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 21, 2009·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In an action for specific performance of a real estate contract, the defendant Mable Scott appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated April 7, 2008, as denied her separate motions, inter alia, to vacate a consent order and a judgment of the same court dated March 30, 2007, and September 11, 2007, respectively.

Ordered that the order dated April 7, 2008, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellant contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying her motions, inter alia, to vacate a consent order and a judgment in the plaintiffs favor, on the ground that the attorney who previously represented her in this litigation was ineffective. However, “in the context of civil litigation, an attorney’s errors or omissions are binding on the client and, absent extraordinary circumstances, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel will not be entertained” (Matter of Saren v Palma, 263 AD2d 544, 545 [1999]; see Mendoza v Plaza Homes, LLC, 55 AD3d 692, 693 [2008]; Matter of Robinson, 44 AD3d 961 [2007]; Matter of [821]*821Cichosz v Cichosz, 12 AD3d 598, 599 [2004]). The defendant failed to establish the existence of any extraordinary circumstances in this case. Rivera, J.R, Angiolillo, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for specific performance of a real estate contract, the defendant Mable Scott appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated April 7, 2008, as denied her separate motions, inter alia, to vacate a consent order and a judgment of the same court dated March 30, 2007, and September 11, 2007, respectively.

Ordered that the order dated April 7, 2008, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellant contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying her motions, inter alia, to vacate a consent order and a judgment in the plaintiffs favor, on the ground that the attorney who previously represented her in this litigation was ineffective. However, “in the context of civil litigation, an attorney’s errors or omissions are binding on the client and, absent extraordinary circumstances, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel will not be entertained” (Matter of Saren v Palma, 263 AD2d 544, 545 [1999]; see Mendoza v Plaza Homes, LLC, 55 AD3d 692, 693 [2008]; Matter of Robinson, 44 AD3d 961 [2007]; Matter of [821]*821Cichosz v Cichosz, 12 AD3d 598, 599 [2004]). The defendant failed to establish the existence of any extraordinary circumstances in this case. Rivera, J.R, Angiolillo, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.

Galil, LLC v. Scott, 61 A.D.3d 820, 876 N.Y.S.2d 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

61 A.D.3d 820 (Galil, LLC v. Scott) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related