Opinion
2002-05980
Argued April 3, 2003.
May 5, 2003.
In an action to recover legal fees, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated April 30, 2002, which denied her motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1).
Schoeman Updike Kaufman, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Beth L. Kaufman and Pamela D. Field of counsel), for appellant.
Behrins Behrins, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y. (Susan R. Schneider of counsel), respondent pro se.
Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1). Contrary to the defendant's contention, substantial, not strict, compliance with 22 NYCRR 1400 et seq, is required (see Mulcahy v. Mulcahy, 285 A.D.2d 587). The defendant's documentary evidence submitted in support of her motion did not make out a prima facie case that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to substantially comply with 22 NYCRR 1400 et seq. Accordingly, denial of the motion was proper (see CPLR 3211[a][1]; European American Bank v. Miller, 265 A.D.2d 374).
FLORIO, J.P., H. MILLER, ADAMS and MASTRO, JJ., concur.