Law Offices of Bart J. Eagle PLLC v Spector

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Law Offices of Bart J. Eagle PLLC v Spector 2013 NY Slip Op 30029(U) January 8, 2013 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 111626/11 Judge: Doris Ling-Cohan Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. ANNEDON 111012013 [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PART J 6 Index Number : 111626/2011 BART J. EAGLE PLLC INDEX NO. Vh MOTION DATE SPECTOR, GILBERT MOTION SEQ. NO. Sequence N u m b e r : 002 DISMISS , were read on this motion tolfor The following papers, numbered 1 to Notice of MotionlOrderto Show Cause -Affidavits Answering Affidavits Replying Affidavits - Exhibits Y +m w o - Exhibits I No(s).&LIW s ) . 3 INOW. y > I7-e )w c Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion & ph,&& A 4 - . LLI I I c A I. CHECK ONE: ..................................................................... 0 CASE DISPOSED 3. "NONLFINAL DISPOSITIO~ ........................... MOTION IS: nGRANTED .UDENIED CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ 0SETTLE ORDER 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: DO NOT POST , J.S.C flGRANTED IN PART OTHER nSUBMIT ORDER 0FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 0REFERENCI [* 2] HON. DORIS LING-COHAN, J . BACKGROUND i1-1 (I: ! 1.1 i-i (: = 5 t 11e f(1I 1 Dw i ng f c.:t . 11 a 1 a -11 q a t i o r 1 s . e . We.: I. he s t c r C i)11 r i t y , .Ir i d e x N o . 2 5 128 / 06 ) ( the s ( : Westchester C o u n t y , TritlF-- x No. P 1 a ir.1 t. i f f p c r fcj rmed : \ I l o q i .I Ac t.iori ) , 221 99/07) (the Scc:ori(d W e n d y ( I l o g i . 1 ) , a cnrnpariy :in whi ch r i o r i p a r t y Dj.ana Weridy or h c r husband, noril.,ari:y liowar-d Wendy, a l s o h d d i r i t e . r e s t s . The c [* 3] 2 [* 4] 3 [* 5] 4 [* 6] 5 [* 7] [* 8] 7 [* 9] c a n r c l 1 e d , w i t h t1ic debt: liav i n g b e e n c o n v e r t . e t l t.o e q u i t y b y (Order, N o t c)f Mot, b.;xh K, p . 10). 'Yhu.~;, t h e b r a n c h o f tl-le m o t i o n tl-iat sceks t c i d i s m i ss i.he (::;sent i a l l y a l l e g e [ . h a t p l a i n t : . i f f breached t.he r e t a i n e r ayr-eernerit t u p 1 i cativc o f t h e 1.eqal. malpractice r l a i m si.nc:c t h e y arose frorn 8 [* 10] t h e sC3rne i a c t s a x i d do n o t seek ( 3 ; :;t.inct and c:qi.i.i i.ab1.e rel.:ic;f a n d different damages i s a 1 . s ~ ithout m e r i t and t h e r e f o r e w (3-i.s(:overy; arid i t i.s .LurLher OIIDERED l.hdl. wi I.hin 3 0 clays o f e n t r y o f eni r y . 9 this o r d e r ,

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.