Simoni v. Napoli

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 *488parties, claims and relief sought (see 952 Assoc., LLC v Palmer, 52 AD3d 236 [1st Dept 2008]; Esposit v Anderson Kill Olick & Oshinsky, 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 plaintiffs 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). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Acosta and Román, JJ.