From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hbjobaron Assocs. v. Leahing

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug 17, 2016
142 A.D.3d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

08-17-2016

HBJOBARON ASSOCIATES, respondent, v. Sophia LEAHING, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.

Heslop & Kalba LLP, Brooklyn, NY (Garfield A. Heslop of counsel), for appellants. Warner & Scheuerman, New York, NY (Jonathon D. Warner and Karl E. Scheuerman of counsel), for respondent.


Heslop & Kalba LLP, Brooklyn, NY (Garfield A. Heslop of counsel), for appellants.

Warner & Scheuerman, New York, NY (Jonathon D. Warner and Karl E. Scheuerman of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Sophia Leahing and Gary Cole appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated May 19, 2015, which denied their cross motion, inter alia, to vacate two orders of the same court dated December 17, 2013, and March 10, 2014.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants in this commercial mortgage foreclosure action contend that they were entitled to vacatur of two prior orders of the Supreme Court because their former attorneys' conduct constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. “[I]n the context of civil litigation, an attorney's errors or omissions are binding on the client and, absent extraordinary circumstances, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel will not be entertained” (Mendoza v. Plaza Homes, LLC, 55 A.D.3d 692, 693, 865 N.Y.S.2d 342 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Nugent v. Diocese of Rockville Ctr., 137 A.D.3d 760, 761, 26 N.Y.S.3d 556 ; Eastern Capital Group, LLC v. 26 Realty Bldrs. USA, Inc., 81 A.D.3d 686, 687, 916 N.Y.S.2d 776 ; McVeigh v. Curry, 74 A.D.3d 915, 916, 902 N.Y.S.2d 371 ; Columbian Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Portes, 290 A.D.2d 905, 906, 737 N.Y.S.2d 667 ). Here, the appellants failed to establish the existence of any extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, the court properly denied the appellants' cross motion, inter alia, to vacate the two prior orders on the ground that their former attorneys were ineffective.

The parties' remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination.

CHAMBERS, J.P., AUSTIN, MALTESE and DUFFY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hbjobaron Assocs. v. Leahing

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug 17, 2016
142 A.D.3d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Hbjobaron Assocs. v. Leahing

Case Details

Full title:HBJOBARON ASSOCIATES, respondent, v. Sophia LEAHING, et al., appellants…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Aug 17, 2016

Citations

142 A.D.3d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 5793
36 N.Y.S.3d 610

Citing Cases

Socci v. Socci

The defendant further contends that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. However, there…

New Penn Fin. v. Rubin

"[I]t is well settled in civil litigation that an attorney's errors or omissions are binding on the client,…