Opinion
2012-07-11
POTRUCH & DAAB, LLC, etc., respondent, v. Gideon ABRAHAM, appellant.
La Reddola, Lester & Associates, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Robert J. La Reddola of counsel), for appellant. L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Nicole Feder of counsel), for respondent.
La Reddola, Lester & Associates, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Robert J. La Reddola of counsel), for appellant. L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Nicole Feder of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, in which the defendant asserts counterclaims to recover damages for, among other things, legal malpractice, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), dated January 26, 2011, which granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendant's counterclaims, inter alia, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3), and denied the defendant's cross motion for leave to amend the counterclaims, (2) a judgment of the same court entered February 25, 2011, which, among other things, upon the order, dismissed the defendant's counterclaims, and (3) an order of the same court dated March 15, 2011, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on its causes of action to recover damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated January 26, 2011, is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment entered February 25, 2011, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated March 15, 2011, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The appeal from the order dated January 26, 2011, must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment ( see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment ( seeCPLR 5501[a][1] ).
The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaims to recover damages for, among other things, legal malpractice. The failure of a party to disclose a cause of action as an asset in a prior bankruptcy proceeding, which the party knew or should have known existed at the time of that proceeding, deprives him or her of “the legal capacity to sue subsequently on that cause of action” ( Whelan v. Longo, 23 A.D.3d 459, 460, 808 N.Y.S.2d 95,affd.7 N.Y.3d 821, 822 N.Y.S.2d 751, 855 N.E.2d 1165;see Dynamics Corp. of Am. v. Marine Midland Bank–N.Y., 69 N.Y.2d 191, 195–196, 513 N.Y.S.2d 91, 505 N.E.2d 601;Santori v. Met Life, 11 A.D.3d 597, 599, 784 N.Y.S.2d 117;123 Cutting Co. v. Topcove Assoc., 2 A.D.3d 606, 607, 770 N.Y.S.2d 365).
Here, it is undisputed that the defendant did not disclose, in a bankruptcy petition that he filed in September 2007, the existence of the causes of action he now asserts as counterclaims. The plaintiff showed, prima facie, that at the time of the filing of that petition the defendant knew or should have known of the existence of those causes of action, and the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to that prima facie showing ( see Wright v. Meyers & Spencer, LLP, 46 A.D.3d 805, 849 N.Y.S.2d 274;Hansen v. Madani, 263 A.D.2d 881, 883, 693 N.Y.S.2d 332;see also Whelan v. Longo, 23 A.D.3d at 460, 808 N.Y.S.2d 95). Further, under the circumstances of this case, the fact that the defendant's bankruptcy petition was later dismissed does not change this result ( see Nationwide Assocs., Inc. v. Epstein, 24 A.D.3d 738, 739, 809 N.Y.S.2d 118;see also Kunica v. St. Jean Financial, Inc., 233 B.R. 46, 53–54). Moreover, although the defendant stated in his opposition to the plaintiff's motion that, in 2010, he filed a second bankruptcy petition in which he did disclose his malpractice cause of action, in support of that claim he submitted only a single page of the Schedule of Assets from that petition. He also submitted no evidence as to the ultimate disposition of the second bankruptcy petition. He therefore failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he regained his capacity to assert his legal malpractice claims against the plaintiff by filing the second bankruptcy petition ( see Nationwide Assoc., Inc. v. Epstein, 24 A.D.3d at 739, 809 N.Y.S.2d 118).
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for leave to amend his counterclaims in light of his lack of capacity to assert those counterclaims ( see Putnam County Sav. Bank v. Aditya, 91 A.D.3d 840, 841–842, 938 N.Y.S.2d 98;Romano v. Damiano, 242 A.D.2d 267, 268, 661 N.Y.S.2d 40).
The Supreme Court did not err in granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on its causes of action to recover damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability as to those causes of action, and the defendant did not raise a triable issue of fact in opposition ( see Law Offs. of Clifford G. Kleinbaum v. Shurkin, 88 A.D.3d 659, 660, 931 N.Y.S.2d 879;Pryor & Mandelup, LLP v. Sabbeth, 82 A.D.3d 731, 732, 918 N.Y.S.2d 165).