Nimkoff Rosenfeld & Schechter, LLP v O'Flaherty

Nimkoff Rosenfeld & Schechter, LLP v O'Flaherty 2010 NY Slip Op 02067 [71 AD3d 533] March 18, 2010 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Nimkoff Rosenfeld & Schechter, LLP, Formerly Known as Schechter & Nimkoff, LLP, Respondent,
v
Kevin P. O'Flaherty et al., Appellants.

—[*1] Phillips Nizer LLP, New York (Donald L. Kreindler of counsel), for appellants.

Nimkoff Rosenfeld & Schechter, LLP, New York (Jenni Spiritis of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered July 23, 2009, which denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff's failure to plead at the outset that the dispute over counsel fees and disbursements was not covered by the Fee Dispute Resolution Program (see 22 NYCRR 137.6 [b] [2]) is not a jurisdictional defect precluding it from serving an amended complaint (see Kerner & Kerner v Dunham, 46 AD3d 372 [2007]). Therefore, plaintiff had the right to amend its complaint during the pendency of defendants' motion to dismiss (CPLR 3025 [a]; see Johnson v Spence, 286 AD2d 481, 483 [2001]). It is well settled that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, thus rendering without legal effect the defective earlier pleading (see Chalasani v Neuman, 64 NY2d 879 [1985]; Elegante Leasing, Ltd. v Cross Trans Svc, Inc., 11 AD3d 650 [2004]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Abdus-Salaam and RomÁn, JJ.