Simoni v Napoli

Simoni v Napoli 2012 NY Slip Op 08639 Decided on December 13, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 13, 2012
Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Acosta, Román, JJ.
8836N 302290/10

[*1]Arianit Simoni, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Paul J. Napoli, Esq., et al., Defendants-Appellants.




Ropers Majeski Kohn Bentley, New York (Andrew L. Margulis
of counsel), for appellants.
The Dauti Law Firm, P.C., New York (Ylber Albert Dauti of
counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered April 18, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants' motion to stay the instant legal malpractice action pending the resolution of plaintiff's related personal injury action, and granted plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend the complaint to add further allegations of malpractice against defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendants' request for a stay of the legal malpractice action pending resolution of plaintiff's personal injury action (see CPLR 2201). The proceedings do not share complete identity of parties, claims and relief sought (see 952 Assoc., LLC v Palmer, 52 AD3d 236 [1st Dept 2008]; Esposit v Anderson Kill Olick & Oshinsky, P.C., 237 AD2d 246 [2d Dept 1997]).

The motion court also properly permitted plaintiff to amend the complaint (see CPLR 3025[b]). The amended complaint and the documents submitted in support of the cross motion allege facts from which it could reasonably be inferred that defendants' negligence caused plaintiff's loss (see Garnett v Fox, Horan & Camerini, LLP, 82 AD3d 435 [1st Dept 2011]). At this stage of the proceedings, plaintiff does not have to show that he actually sustained damages as a result of defendants' alleged malpractice (id. at 436).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 13, 2012

CLERK