Opinion
02-27-2024
Sang Seok NA, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. PULVERS, PULVERS & THOMPSON, LLP et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Sang Seok Na, appellant pro se. Pulvers Pulvers & Thompson LLP, New York (Stacy L. Thompson of counsel), for respondents.
Sang Seok Na, appellant pro se.
Pulvers Pulvers & Thompson LLP, New York (Stacy L. Thompson of counsel), for respondents.
Singh, J.P., Friedman, González, Higgitt, Michael, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered July 6, 2022, which granted defendants’ CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss, denied plaintiff’s motion for default judgment as moot, and denied plaintiff's motion to strike defendants’ motion to dismiss and to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Initially, many of plaintiff's arguments are not reviewable by this Court as they either arise from Queens County Supreme Court orders that are not the subject of the instant notice of appeal (CPLR 5501[c]) or claims that were previously presented to, and decided by, the Appellate Division, Second Department (Sang Seok Na v. Schietroma, 172 A.D.3d 1263, 1263, 101 N.Y.S.3d 368 [2d Dept. 2019]; Sang Seok NA v. Schietroma, 163 A.D.3d 597, 597, 79 N.Y.S.3d 636 [2d Dept. 2018]; Sang Seok Na v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 88 A.D.3d 980, 981, 931 N.Y.S.2d 398 [2d Dept. 2011]; see Delgado v. City of New York, 144 A.D.3d 46, 51, 38 N.Y.S.3d 129 [1st Dept. 2016]).
To the extent his claims are reviewable and are based on the order on appeal, we conclude that Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion to dismiss because the record establishes that the statute of limitations on plaintiff's legal malpractice claim expired on April 1, 2018, and plaintiff did not initiate the instant action until, at minimum, September 25, 2019 (see CPLR 214[6]; Sharp v. Ferrante Law Firm, 220 A.D.3d 587, 587–588, 199 N.Y.S.3d 31 [1st Dept. 2023]).
Supreme Court also properly found that plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead a claim of fraud where plaintiff's complaint was incomprehensible, conclusory, and unsupported by any admissible evidence (see Cronos Group Ltd. v. XComIP LLC, 156 A.D.3d 54, 61–62, 64 N.Y.S.3d 180 [1st Dept. 2017]).
Plaintiff's contention that his motion for default judgment was improperly denied is unavailing. Plaintiff fails to elaborate on his claim that the court committed fraud in denying the motion, and the record does not support his contention. Plaintiff also fails to articulate any basis to reverse the court’s denial of his motion to strike defendants’ motion to dismiss.
We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.