Kerner v. Dunham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kerner v. Dunham

46 A.D.3d 372, 848 N.Y.S.2d 617

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

DecidedDecember 18, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 46 A.D.3d 372 (Kerner v. Dunham) 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

Kerner v. Dunham, 46 A.D.3d 372, 848 N.Y.S.2d 617 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered October 20, 2006, which, in an action to recover attorneys’ fees, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, without prejudice to institution of a new action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed for failure to allege that, as claimed by plaintiff in opposition to the motion, the dispute involves more than $50,000 and therefore is not covered by the Fee Dispute Resolution Program (22 NYCRR part 137; see 22 NYCRR 137.1 [b] [2]; 137.6 [b] [2]; Paikin v Tsirelman, 266 AD2d 136 [1999]). We deem the motion court’s dismissal to be without prejudice to a new action (see CPLR 5013). We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them to be unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Williams, McGuire and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered October 20, 2006, which, in an action to recover attorneys’ fees, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, without prejudice to institution of a new action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed for failure to allege that, as claimed by plaintiff in opposition to the motion, the dispute involves more than $50,000 and therefore is not covered by the Fee Dispute Resolution Program (22 NYCRR part 137; see 22 NYCRR 137.1 [b] [2]; 137.6 [b] [2]; Paikin v Tsirelman, 266 AD2d 136 [1999]). We deem the motion court’s dismissal to be without prejudice to a new action (see CPLR 5013). We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them to be unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Williams, McGuire and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 372, 848 N.Y.S.2d 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kerner-v-dunham-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack