Court Opinion

ID: 9392355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-04 17:07:17.794008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:45.546590
License: Public Domain

Mah v 40-44 W. 120th St. Assoc. LLC (2023 NY Slip Op 02382)

Mah v 40-44 W. 120th St. Assoc. LLC

2023 NY Slip Op 02382

Decided on May 04, 2023

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 and Entered: May 04, 2023

Before: Webber, J.P., Gesmer, González, Scarpulla, Mendez, JJ. 

Index No. 650927/16 Appeal No. 168 Case No. 2023-00069 

[*1]Timothy Mah et al., Plaintiffs, Crystal Cash, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v40-44 West 120th Street Associates LLC, et al., Defendants, Shupack & Hardy LLP, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP, New York (Anthony J. Proscia of counsel), for appellants.
Resko Law Office, P.C., New York (Michael Resko of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered on or about December 29, 2022, to the extent it denied defendants Shupack & Hardy LLP and Jeffrey Shupack's motion for leave to renew their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.
Defendants failed to perfect, and thus abandoned, their appeal of the prior October 15, 2019 order denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Crystal Cash's professional malpractice claim against them, which precludes consideration of their present appeal from the motion court's December 29, 2022 order denying them leave to renew (Inwood Tower v Fireman's Fund Ins. Co, 290 AD2d 252 [1st Dept 2002]; see Kats v Agosto, 203 AD3d 661 [1st Dept 2022]; see 22 NYCRR 1250.10[a]). Although in certain cases this Court may exercise its discretion to entertain a second appeal that raises arguments that could have been raised in an earlier, abandoned appeal (Faricelli v TSS Seedman's, 94 NY2d 772, 774 [1999]), we decline to do so here. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: May 4, 2023