Sutch v Sutch-Lenz

Sutch v Sutch-Lenz 2015 NY Slip Op 04903 Decided on June 11, 2015 Appellate Division, Third 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 and Entered: June 11, 2015
519971

[*1]BENJAMIN SUTCH, Appellant,

v

DEBERA C. SUTCH-LENZ, Also Known as DEBERA C. SUTCH, et al., Defendants, and DEAN M. COON, as Guardian ad Litem of BENJAMIN SUTCH, an Infant, Respondent.

Calendar Date: April 30, 2015
Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr. and Rose, JJ.

Towne, Ryan & Partners, PC, Albany (Dana K. Scalere of counsel), for appellant.

Smith, Sovick, Kendrick & Sugnet, PC, Syracuse (Brady J. O'Malley of counsel), for respondent.

Egan Jr., J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Nolan Jr., J.), entered July 2, 2014 in Saratoga County, which, among other things, granted defendant Dean M. Coon's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him.

The underlying facts are fully set forth in our prior decision involving a virtually identical appeal brought by

plaintiff's sister, Jessica Sutch, wherein this Court affirmed Supreme Court's order granting a motion by defendant Dean M. Coon (hereinafter defendant) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him (Sutch v Sutch-Lenz, ___ AD3d ___, 2015 NY Slip Op 04693 [2015]). Upon reviewing the record on appeal in this case, we find that the allegations of legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty asserted against defendant, as well as the arguments raised by plaintiff on the present appeal, mirror those raised by plaintiff's sister on her prior appeal — as does the evidence tendered in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint and the proof submitted by plaintiff in opposition thereto. Accordingly, as plaintiff's arguments and proof relative to defendant's representation of him are [*2]indistinguishable from those previously raised by his sister, we affirm for the reasons set forth in our prior decision (id.).

Lahtinen, J.P., Garry and Rose, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.