Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025

DiCarlo v. Russo Law Group, P.C.

DiCarlo v. Russo Law Group, P.C.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 13, 2025
2025 NY Slip Op 00844
DiCarlo v. Russo Law Group, P.C.

Opinion

DiCarlo v Russo Law Group, P.C. (2025 NY Slip Op 00844)
DiCarlo v Russo Law Group, P.C.
2025 NY Slip Op 00844
Decided on February 13, 2025
Appellate Division, Second 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 on February 13, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI
BARRY E. WARHIT
LAURENCE L. LOVE, JJ.

2022-00927
2022-08740
(Index No. 603659/19)

[*1]Thomas Barney DiCarlo, etc., et al., respondents,

v

Russo Law Group, P.C., etc., et al., appellants.




Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, Valhalla, NY (Lisa E. Fleischmann and David Bloom of counsel), for appellants.

Randy Scott Zelin P.C., New York, NY, for respondents.



DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roy S. Mahon J.), entered December 10, 2021, and (2) an order of the same court entered October 6, 2022. The order entered December 10, 2021, granted the plaintiffs' motion, among other things, for leave to amend the complaint and denied the defendants' cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 2201 to stay the action. The order entered October 6, 2022, insofar as appealed from, denied the defendants' motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the amended complaint and for leave to renew their prior motion, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 3012(b) to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint, which had been denied in an order of the same court dated March 31, 2021.

ORDERED that the appeals are dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

The appeals must be dismissed as academic in light of our determination on a related appeal (see DiCarlo v Russo Law Group, P.C., _____ AD3d _____ [Appellate Division Docket No. 2021-03090; decided herewith]).

CONNOLLY, J.P., IANNACCI, WARHIT and LOVE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court



Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.