Opinion
2017-03981 Index 507958/13
10-06-2021
Pinkesz Mutual Holdings, LLC, appellant, v. Edward Pinkesz, etc., et al., respondents, et al., defendants.
Ahmuty, Demers & McManus LLP, Albertson, NY (Susan Mauro of counsel), for appellant. Jerome E. Goldman, Esq., P.C., Brooklyn, NY, for respondent Anthony Pinkesz, and Law Office of Susie Chovev, Esq., PLLC, Cedarhurst, NY (Law Offices of Victor Worms, P.C., of counsel), for respondent Edward Pinkesz (one brief filed).
Ahmuty, Demers & McManus LLP, Albertson, NY (Susan Mauro of counsel), for appellant.
Jerome E. Goldman, Esq., P.C., Brooklyn, NY, for respondent Anthony Pinkesz, and Law Office of Susie Chovev, Esq., PLLC, Cedarhurst, NY (Law Offices of Victor Worms, P.C., of counsel), for respondent Edward Pinkesz (one brief filed).
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P. VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON LINDA CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnny Lee Baynes, J.), dated February 13, 2017. The order granted the motion of the defendant Anthony Pinkesz to vacate a notice of discontinuance filed by the plaintiff on November 30, 2016, and denied the plaintiff's cross motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3217(b) to discontinue the action.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In 2013, the plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty, and for related equitable relief. After extensive pre-answer motion practice, discovery-related disputes, requests for sanctions, and the joinder of issue by one of the defendants, the plaintiff filed a notice of discontinuance pursuant to CPLR 3217(a)(1) on November 30, 2016. The defendant Anthony Pinkesz thereafter moved to vacate the notice of discontinuance, and the plaintiff cross-moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 3217(b) to discontinue the action. The Supreme Court granted Pinkesz's motion and denied the plaintiff's cross motion. The plaintiff appeals.
Under the circumstances presented, the Supreme Court properly granted Pinkesz's motion to vacate the notice of discontinuance, which was untimely pursuant to CPLR 3217(a)(1) (see Jericho Group, Ltd. v Mid-Town Dev. L.P., 129 A.D.3d 561; BDO USA, LLP v Phoenix Four, Inc., 113 A.D.3d 507, 511; Rosenfeld v Renika Pty. Ltd., 84 A.D.3d 703; McMahan v McMahan, 62 A.D.3d 619). Moreover, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's cross motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3217(b) to discontinue the action (see Baez v Parkway Mobile Homes, Inc., 125 A.D.3d 905, 908; Kane v Kane, 163 A.D.2d 568, 570).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions either need not be reached in light of our determination or are improperly raised for the first time on appeal.
CHAMBERS, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, CHRISTOPHER and ZAYAS, JJ., concur.