Simoni v. Napoli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Simoni v. Napoli

101 A.D.3d 487, 954 N.Y.2d 870

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.3d 487 (Simoni v. Napoli) 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

Simoni v. Napoli, 101 A.D.3d 487, 954 N.Y.2d 870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendants’ request for a stay of the legal malpractice action pending resolution of plaintiff’s personal injury action (see CPLR 2201). The proceedings do not share complete identity of [488]*488parties, claims and relief sought (see 952 Assoc., LLC v Palmer, 52 AD3d 236 [1st Dept 2008]; Esposit v Anderson Kill Olick & Oshinsky, 237 AD2d 246 [2d Dept 1997]).

The motion court also properly permitted plaintiff to amend the complaint (see CPLR 3025 [b]). The amended complaint and the documents submitted in support of the cross motion allege facts from which it could reasonably be inferred that defendants’ negligence caused plaintiffs loss (see Garnett v Fox, Horan & Camerini, LLP, 82 AD3d 435 [1st Dept 2011]). At this stage of the proceedings, plaintiff does not have to show that he actually sustained damages as a result of defendants’ alleged malpractice (id. at 436). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Acosta and Román, JJ.

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

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendants’ request for a stay of the legal malpractice action pending resolution of plaintiff’s personal injury action (see CPLR 2201). The proceedings do not share complete identity of [488]*488parties, claims and relief sought (see 952 Assoc., LLC v Palmer, 52 AD3d 236 [1st Dept 2008]; Esposit v Anderson Kill Olick & Oshinsky, 237 AD2d 246 [2d Dept 1997]).

The motion court also properly permitted plaintiff to amend the complaint (see CPLR 3025 [b]). The amended complaint and the documents submitted in support of the cross motion allege facts from which it could reasonably be inferred that defendants’ negligence caused plaintiffs loss (see Garnett v Fox, Horan & Camerini, LLP, 82 AD3d 435 [1st Dept 2011]). At this stage of the proceedings, plaintiff does not have to show that he actually sustained damages as a result of defendants’ alleged malpractice (id. at 436). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Acosta and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 487, 954 N.Y.2d 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simoni-v-napoli-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack