“Dismissal is proper under CPLR § 3211 (a) (7) if the allegations are duplicative of or encompassed by the legal malpractice claim ( see Kliger-Weiss Infosystems, Inc. Accordingly, plaintiffs assert causes of action for negligence and legal malpractice, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, fraud and/or negligent misrepresentation, and fee disgorgement.” They assert that defendants misled them deliberately in all the above actions. Plaintiffs assert that, had the case gone to trial, they would have “obtained a judgment against, and collected from, net money damages in excess of three million dollars” (Complaint, ¶ 48). Because of this, and because the Sponsor now contained no assets, plaintiffs contend, they were forced to accept a poor settlement during the mediation that commenced in March of 2012. Plaintiffs assert that defendants also assured them they would research and confirm that the Sponsor had sufficient assets to satisfy any judgment.Īccording to the complaint, defendants did none of the things they promised, and in addition they allowed the statute of limitations to lapse. The complaint alleges that defendants assured them they would add the Clarett Group, which owned the building’s Sponsor, as well as Clarett’s CEO at the time, Veronica Hackett, as defendants. Subsequently, they hired defendants to replace the original firm. When these efforts failed, around November 2009, plaintiffs commenced the underlying lawsuit, with another law firm as their counsel. Between June 2007 and August 2009 plaintiffs tried unsuccessfully to get defendant 205-209 East 57th Street Associates, LLC (Sponsor), the owner of the building, to remediate the problems. Plaintiffs alleged that the apartment was defectively constructed and had toxic mold and that they relocated following an inspection which revealed the scope of the problems. “The underlying action related to an apartment that plaintiffs purchased in the building located at 205-209 East 57th Street. George tells the litigants that the materials presented by the attorney in this 3211 motion is better looked at in a 3212 setting, and employs CPLR 3211(c).

In Englese v Sladkus 2018 NY Slip Op 50621(U) Decided on ApSupreme Court, New York County, Judge St. The process is set forth in CPLR 3211(c) wherein the Court may convert a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211 into a motion for summary judgment under CPLR 3212, so long as adequate notice is given to the litigants.

Motion to dismiss new york