Laduca v. Levidow, Levidow & Oberman
This text of 29 A.D.3d 533 (Laduca v. Levidow, Levidow & Oberman) 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.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants [534]*534separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silver-man, J.), dated May 3, 2005, as, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to restore the action to active status.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The Supreme Court properly, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to restore the action to active status (see O’Connell v City Wide Auto Leasing, 6 AD3d 682 [2004]; Akpinar v John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 302 AD2d 337 [2003]).
The parties’ remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be reached in light of this determination. Florio, J.P., Miller, Adams and Skelos, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
29 A.D.3d 533, 813 N.Y.S.2d 671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laduca-v-levidow-levidow-oberman-nyappdiv-2006.