An Unusual Twin Legal Malpractice Case Hobbles On
Dealy-Doe-Eyes Maddux v Schur 2013 NY Slip Op 01309 Decided on February 28, 2013 Appellate Division, Third Department is the remaining portion of a twin legal malpractice case that has suffered grievous injury. "Plaintiff commenced two legal malpractice actions against defendant, the second of which proceeded to trial and was dismissed by Supreme Court at the close of her proof. She has repeatedly sought, without success, to vacate the order of dismissal in that case (Maddux v Schur, 83 AD3d 1156 ; Maddux v Schur, 53 AD3d 738 ). Plaintiff then moved for a variety of relief, including to "clarify" the status of the two actions. Supreme Court found that the first action remained pending and otherwise denied plaintiff's motion, and plaintiff appeals.
We affirm. Initially, to the extent that plaintiff is asserting a claim relative to the second action, including claims pursuant to CPLR 2221 or 5015 in that action, we agree with Supreme Court that it has already "proceeded through a well litigated course," and find the application to be repetitive, lacking grounds that could not have been presented in the prior proceedings (see [*2]Maddux v Schur, 83 AD3d at 1157-1158; Maddux v Schur, 53 AD3d at 739; see also Lambert v Schreiber, 95 AD3d 1282, 1283 ). Further, we discern no error in Supreme Court's determination that there had been no prior application to consolidate and join the two actions (see CPLR 602 [a]), nor in its direction for the parties to proceed to a conference before the court [FN2]. Plaintiff's remaining arguments have been considered and found to be without merit. "