In a March 22, 2011 decision by Justice Demarest, the court dismissed a special turnover proceeding commenced by one law firm against another pursuant to CPLR § 5225(b), on the grounds that the action was duplicative of other actions pending by the same plaintiffs who were represented by the petitioner firm, against the same parties, for compensation for the same alleged wrongs that served as the predicate for the relief sought in the special proceeding. The petitioner sought an order directing the respondent to turn over legal fees purportedly fraudulently conveyed to it by its client (Deutsch), who was adverse to petitioner’s client (Parklex Associates) in separate proceedings pending before the court. Although the court held that the petition stated a cognizable claim under CPLR § 5225(b), it dismissed the petition upon finding: (1) Deutsch’s right to the monies in question was the very issue being litigated in the other actions; (2) the petitioner could not prevail in the special proceeding without the court first adjudicating the merits of the defenses asserted in the other actions; and (3) the other actions pending would fully redress the petitioner if there was a determination that the respondent law firm wrongfully facilitated its client’s goal of hindering, delaying, or defrauding Parklex Associates from obtaining its rightful recovery.
Scher Law Firm v Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer LLP, Sup Ct, Kings County, March 22, 2011, Demarest, J, Index No. 22887/10