Opinion
2012-04-10
Diedrich HOLTKAMP, et al., appellants, v. PARKLEX ASSOCIATES, et al., defendants, Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer, LLP, et al., proposed defendants-respondents.
Scher Law Firm, LLP, Carle Place, N.Y. (Austin Graff and Jonathan Scher of counsel), for appellants. Tannebaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP, New York, N.Y. (Vincent J. Syracuse, David J. Kanfer, and Maryanne C. Stallone of counsel), for proposed defendants-respondents.
Scher Law Firm, LLP, Carle Place, N.Y. (Austin Graff and Jonathan Scher of counsel), for appellants. Tannebaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP, New York, N.Y. (Vincent J. Syracuse, David J. Kanfer, and Maryanne C. Stallone of counsel), for proposed defendants-respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), dated February 22, 2011, as denied that branch of their motion which was for leave to serve a supplemental summons and fourth amended complaint adding Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer, LLP, Mark C. Zauderer, and Jonathan D. Lupkin as defendants and asserting a cause of action against them pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The conduct alleged by the plaintiffs occurred in part prior to the applicable three-year period of limitations ( see Lefkowitz v. Appelbaum, 258 A.D.2d 563, 563, 685 N.Y.S.2d 460; Jorgensen v. Silverman, 224 A.D.2d 665, 665–666, 638 N.Y.S.2d 482). Further, the plaintiffs' allegations were not sufficient to set forth a cause of action against the respondents pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487 ( see DeStaso v. Condon Resnick, LLP, 90 A.D.3d 809, 814, 936 N.Y.S.2d 51; Sabalza v. Salgado, 85 A.D.3d 436, 438, 924 N.Y.S.2d 373; Schwartz v. Sayah, 83 A.D.3d 926, 920 N.Y.S.2d 714; McCluskey v. Gabor & Gabor, 61 A.D.3d 646, 648, 876 N.Y.S.2d 162; Callaghan v. Goldsweig, 7 A.D.3d 361, 362, 777 N.Y.S.2d 60; Glorioso v. DeBlasio, 227 A.D.2d 588, 589, 643 N.Y.S.2d 402). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for leave to serve a supplemental summons and fourth amended complaint adding the respondents as defendants and asserting a cause of action against them pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487 ( see Lucido v. Mancuso, 49 A.D.3d 220, 229, 851 N.Y.S.2d 238).
The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be addressed in light of our determination.