Opinion
2018–04357 Index No. 711923/16
07-15-2020
Maurice KESHNER, Respondent, v. HEIN WATERS & KLEIN, et al., Appellants.
Abrams Garfinkel Margolis Bergson, LLP, New York, NY (Robert J. Bergson and Andrew W. Gefell of counsel), for appellants. Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, New York, NY, for respondent.
Abrams Garfinkel Margolis Bergson, LLP, New York, NY (Robert J. Bergson and Andrew W. Gefell of counsel), for appellants.
Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, New York, NY, for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leonard Livote, J.), entered February 23, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue his opposition to the defendants' prior motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint, which had been granted in an order of the same court entered July 26, 2017, and, upon reargument, vacated the determination in the order entered July 26, 2017, granting that branch of the defendants' prior motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the cause of action alleging legal malpractice and thereupon denied that branch of the defendants' prior motion.
Motion by the plaintiff, inter alia, to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it has been rendered academic by an order of the same court entered September 27, 2018. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated February 7, 2019, that branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
In an order entered September 27, 2018, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was to correct an order entered February 23, 2018, vacated the order entered February 23, 2018, and set forth a substituted order therefor. As the order entered February 23, 2018, was vacated by the order entered September 27, 2018, the appeal from the order entered February 23, 2018, must be dismissed.
BALKIN, J.P., COHEN, MILLER and DUFFY, JJ., concur.