Knox v Aronson, Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Knox v Aronson, Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP 2017 NY Slip Op 32951(U) October 16, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 158738/2016 Judge: Carmen Victoria St. George Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/2017 12:34 PM INDEX NO. 158738/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 143 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. CARMEN VICTORIA ST. GEORGE PART 34 Justice JODI KNOX a/k/a JODI MCGINNIS, INDEX NO. 158738/2016 Plaintiff, -v- MOTION DATE 08/10/2017 MOTION SEQ. NO. 004 ARONSON, MAYEFSKY & SLOAN, LLP, KAREN ROBARGE, FREDMAN BAKEN & KOSAN, LLP, Defendants. The following papers were read on this PAPERS NUMBERED Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause -Affidavits - Exhibits - - - - - - - 78-91 Answering Affidavits..;. Exhibits _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 101-117 Replying Affidavits - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 118-120 In this legal malpractice action, defendant Fred.man Baken & Kosan, LLP (FBK) moves for dismissal under CPLR §§ 3211 (a) (1), (4), (5), and (7). The papers in support show that plaintiff alleged essentially the same facts as she had in her counterclaim in Fredman, Baken & Kosan, LLP v McGinnis (Sup Ct, Westchester County, Giacomo, J., index No. 66280/2015). Moreover, contrary to plaintiff's contention, the Westchester Court's January 11, 2017 decision in that case denied plaintiff's cross-motion to amend her answer to include negligence/legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty on substantive grounds, as it found "even accepting every allegation of the proposed amended answer as true, defendant cannot establish a negligence or breach of fiduciary duty claim against plaintiff' (Id, January 11, 2017, at *3). Plaintiff cannot bring an action against FBK here on the same grounds that the Westchester Court expressly rejected (See Paramount Pictures Corp. v Allianz Risk Transfer AG, 141 AD3d 464 [1st Dept 2016] [adjudication on the merits bars relitigating issue in other actions]); Harley v Kawkins, 281 AD2d 593, 594 [2nd Dept 2001] [plaintiff's second action for legal malpractice disµiissed even with respect to additional claims, as they could have been raised in first action]). Plaintiff's arguments to the contrary lack merit. The Court does not address plaintiffs letter or FBK's response, as Justice Billings already rejected plaintiff's contentions regarding counsel's fraud when she heard oral argument. Accordingly, it is 01,{DERED and ADJUDGED that motion sequence 004 is granted, the action is severed and dismissed as to FBK, and the caption is amended accordingly. DATED: 1. CHECK ONE: ........................................... . 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: .... MOTION IS 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ......•........................ 1 of 1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
