Opinion
No. 2810 Index No. 651857/23 Case No. 2023-04067
10-15-2024
In the Matter of Jones Law Firm, P.C., Petitioner/Respondent-Respondent, v. J. Synergy Green, Inc., et al., Respondents/Petitioners-Appellants.
Law Office of Judah Z. Cohen, PLLC, Woodmere (Judah Z. Cohen of counsel), for appellants. Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP, New York (Jeffrey M. Eilender of counsel), for respondent.
Law Office of Judah Z. Cohen, PLLC, Woodmere (Judah Z. Cohen of counsel), for appellants.
Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP, New York (Jeffrey M. Eilender of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Singh, J.P., Gesmer, González, Mendez, Rodriguez, JJ.
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered August 2, 2023, which, to the extent appealed from, declined to consider the counterclaims of respondents J. Synergy Green, Inc. Avrohom Y. Sorotzkin, and Yaakov Milstein (respondents) related to alleged violations of Judiciary Law § 487, unanimously dismissed, without costs.
The Judiciary Act § 487 counterclaims interposed in this action involve an inquiry into disputed facts as to whether petitioner Jones Law Firm, P.C. intentionally deceived respondents (see Matter of David H. Berg & Assoc. v Weksler, 193 A.D.3d 612, 613 [1st Dept 2021]). Petitioner did not seek dismissal of these claims. Consequently, Supreme Court improperly dismissed these counterclaims sua sponte. "Vacating the dismissal order is consistent with the public policy of this State to dispose of cases on their merits (Harwood v Chaliha, 291 A.D.2d 234, 234 [1st Dept 2002]), and upholds the principle that a trial court's power to dismiss an action sua sponte should be used 'sparingly and only in extraordinary circumstances'" (Cooper v Broems, 214 A.D.3d 497, 497 [1st Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Ray v Chen, 148 A.D.3d 568, 569 [1st Dept 2017]; Grant v Rattoballi, 57 A.D.3d 272, 273 [1st Dept 2008]; see also Myung Chun v North Am. Mtge Co., 285 A.D.2d 42, 45 [1st Dept 2001]; Mateo v City of New York, 274 A.D.2d 337, 337 [1st Dept 2000]). However there is no right of appeal from an ex parte order, including an order entered sua sponte (Sholes v Meagher, 100 N.Y.2d 333, 335 [2003]). Under these circumstances, the appropriate remedy is for us to dismiss the appeal.