Hbjobaron Associates v. Leahing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hbjobaron Associates v. Leahing

142 A.D.3d 585, 36 N.Y.S.3d 610

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 17, 2016·No. 2015-07764·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Sophia Leahing and Gary Cole appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated May 19, 2015, which denied their cross motion, inter alia, to vacate two orders of the same court dated December 17, 2013, and March 10, 2014.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants in this commercial mortgage foreclosure action contend that they were entitled to vacatur of two prior orders of the Supreme Court because their former attorneys’ conduct constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. “[I]n 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” (Mendoza v Plaza Homes, LLC, 55 AD3d 692, 693 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Nugent v Diocese of Rockville Ctr, 137 AD3d 760, 761 [2016]; Eastern Capital Group, LLC v 26 Realty Bldrs. USA, Inc., 81 AD3d 686, 687 [2011]; McVeigh v Curry, 74 AD3d 915, 916 [2010]; Columbian Mut. Life Ins. Co. v Portes, 290 AD2d 905, 906 [2002]). Here, *586 the appellants failed to establish the existence of any extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, the court properly denied the appellants’ cross motion, inter alia, to vacate the two prior orders on the ground that their former attorneys were ineffective.

The parties’ remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination.

Chambers, J.P., Austin, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Sophia Leahing and Gary Cole appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated May 19, 2015, which denied their cross motion, inter alia, to vacate two orders of the same court dated December 17, 2013, and March 10, 2014.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants in this commercial mortgage foreclosure action contend that they were entitled to vacatur of two prior orders of the Supreme Court because their former attorneys’ conduct constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. “[I]n 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” (Mendoza v Plaza Homes, LLC, 55 AD3d 692, 693 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Nugent v Diocese of Rockville Ctr, 137 AD3d 760, 761 [2016]; Eastern Capital Group, LLC v 26 Realty Bldrs. USA, Inc., 81 AD3d 686, 687 [2011]; McVeigh v Curry, 74 AD3d 915, 916 [2010]; Columbian Mut. Life Ins. Co. v Portes, 290 AD2d 905, 906 [2002]). Here, *586 the appellants failed to establish the existence of any extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, the court properly denied the appellants’ cross motion, inter alia, to vacate the two prior orders on the ground that their former attorneys were ineffective.

The parties’ remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination.

Chambers, J.P., Austin, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Hbjobaron Associates v. Leahing, 142 A.D.3d 585, 36 N.Y.S.3d 610 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

142 A.D.3d 585 (Hbjobaron Associates v. Leahing) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related