Opinion
2012-12-26
H.P.S. MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., et al., appellants, v. ST. PAUL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., respondents.
Henry M. Grubel, P.C., Freeport, N.Y. (Henry M. Grubel, named herein as Henry Grubel, pro se, of counsel), for appellants. Litchfield Cavo LLP, New York, N.Y. (Vincent J. Velardo of counsel), for respondents St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company and Travelers Companies, Inc.
Henry M. Grubel, P.C., Freeport, N.Y. (Henry M. Grubel, named herein as Henry Grubel, pro se, of counsel), for appellants. Litchfield Cavo LLP, New York, N.Y. (Vincent J. Velardo of counsel), for respondents St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company and Travelers Companies, Inc.
Farrell Fritz, P.C., Uniondale, N.Y. (James M. Wicks and Hillary A. Frommer of counsel), for respondents Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., Seabury & Smith, Inc., and Marsh Affinity Group Services.
White and Williams LLP, New York, N.Y. (Robert Wright and Jaime M. Merritt of counsel), for respondent Wilton Reassurance Life Company of New York.
Keidel, Weldon & Cunningham, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Christopher B. Weldon, Robert J. Grande, and Zachary A. Mengel of counsel), for respondents Babchik & Young, LLP, and Jack Babchik.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, and L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, legal malpractice, and fraud, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Driscoll, J.), dated May 12, 2011, as granted those branches of the motion of the defendants St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company and Travelers Companies, Inc., which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the second, third, fourteenth, and fifteenth causes of action, all without leave to replead, granted that branch of the same motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss so much of the tenth cause of action as sought an award of an attorney's fee against those defendants, granted that branch of the separate motion of the defendants Seabury & Smith, Inc., Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., and Marsh Affinity Group Services which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the eleventh cause of action, without leave to replead, granted those branches of the separate motion of the defendant Wilton Reassurance Life Company of New York which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the eighth, twelfth, and thirteenth causes of action, all without leave to replead, and granted that branch of the separate motion of the defendants Babchik & Young, LLP, and Jack Babchik which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss, insofar as asserted against those defendants, the fourth cause of action.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court applied the proper standard in reviewing the defendants' motions to dismiss various causes of action in the amended complaint that were asserted against each of them ( see generally Garner v. China Natural Gas, Inc., 71 A.D.3d 825, 826, 898 N.Y.S.2d 49;Davis v. Davis, 71 A.D.3d 13, 19, 889 N.Y.S.2d 611;Ruffino v. New York City Tr. Auth., 55 A.D.3d 817, 818, 865 N.Y.S.2d 667). The Supreme Court did not err in directing the dismissal of the causes of action that are the subject of this appeal, as they either failed to state a cause of action, were untimely interposed, or were duplicative of other causes of action that were asserted ( see generallyCPLR 214[4]; Chase Scientific Research v. NIA Group, 96 N.Y.2d 20, 30, 725 N.Y.S.2d 592, 749 N.E.2d 161;Colasacco v. Robert E. Lawrence Real Estate, 68 A.D.3d 706, 708, 890 N.Y.S.2d 114;Kantrowitz v. Allstate Indem. Co., 48 A.D.3d 753, 754, 853 N.Y.S.2d 151;Paterra v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 38 A.D.3d 511, 512–513, 831 N.Y.S.2d 468;LoPresti v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 30 A.D.3d 474, 476, 820 N.Y.S.2d 275;Tortura v. Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., 21 A.D.3d 1082, 1083, 803 N.Y.S.2d 571;Laruccia v. Forchelli, Curto, Schwartz, Mineo, Carlino & Cohn, 295 A.D.2d 321, 322, 744 N.Y.S.2d 335). The Supreme Court also properly denied the plaintiffs' requests for leave to replead that are raised on this appeal ( see generally Janssen v. Incorporated Vil. of Rockville Ctr., 59 A.D.3d 15, 27, 869 N.Y.S.2d 572;Smith–Hoy v. AMC Prop. Evaluations, Inc., 52 A.D.3d 809, 811, 862 N.Y.S.2d 513). Accordingly, the order must be affirmed insofar as appealed from.