[*1]
Goldstein v Luyando
2005 NYSlipOp 51075(U)
Decided on July 11, 2005
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on July 11, 2005
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT:
HON. LUCINDO SUAREZ, P.J.

HON. WILLIAM J. DAVIS HON. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB, Justices.
570625/04 x

William Goldstein, D.C., doing business as STOCK EXCHANGE CHIROPRACTIC GROUP, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

Luz Luyando, Defendant, -and- Sheryl R. Menkes, Esq., Defendant-Appellant. x


Defendant appellant Menkes, as limited by her brief, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court, New York County, entered October 4, 2004 (Saliann Scarpulla, J.) which denied her cross-motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.


PER CURIAM:

Order entered October 4, 2004 (Salliann Scarpulla, J. ) affirmed, with $10 costs.

Civil Court properly denied the cross-motion of appellant to dismiss the endorsed complaint for failure to state a cause of action, since the summary statement of the cause of [*2]action contained in the complaint adequately apprised her of the "nature and substance" of plaintiff's claim (CCA 902 [a] [1]; 903; see, Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Law of NY, Book 29A, CCA 903, at 176-180). The allegations that appellant, an attorney, disbursed the proceeds by her client's personal injury settlement even though appellant had knowledge of her client's agreement to pay plaintiff's claim from those proceeds, is sufficient to state a cause of action (see, Leon v. Martinez, 84 NY2d 83 [1994]). We express no opinion on the ultimate merits of plaintiff's claim.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: July 11, 2005