A case arising in Erie County concerning activities in Syracuse, and all about a couple of law firms from Buffalo is being broken up and returned to Buffalo even after the New York County Commercial Division accepted the case.
Fidelity Natl. Tit. Ins. Co. v Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds Ltd. 2014 NY Slip Op 06371 Decided on September 25, 2014 Appellate Division, First Department arises from real estate and titile insurance proceedings in Syracuse.
"This action stems from a failed loan relating to commercial real estate in Syracuse, New York (see generally Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd. V GML Tower, LLC, 21 NY3d 352 [2013]).
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company issued a policy to Altshuler. In the New York County action, plaintiff Fidelity seeks a declaration that it properly denied coverage to defendant Altshuler. In the amended third-party complaint against Jaeckle, Altshuler asserts that Jaeckle committed legal malpractice by failing to, among other things, obtain adequate title insurance. The amended third-party complaint should have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211[a][7]), because Fidelity did not make a claim against Altshuler for which Jaeckle "is or may be liable" (CPLR 1007; see Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v Valilis, 11 AD2d 324, 326 [1st Dept 1960]; Ainspan v City of Albany, 132 AD2d 911, 913 [3d Dept 1987]). Based on the foregoing determination, it is unnecessary to reach Jaeckle’s other arguments in support of dismissal of the amended third-party complaint.
The motion court should have denied Altshuler’s motion to consolidate the New York County and Erie County actions (see County of Westchester v White Plains Ave., LLC, 105 AD3d 690, 691 [2d Dept 2013]). As we are dismissing the amended third-party complaint in the New York County action, the two actions no longer present common questions of law or fact (see CPLR 602[a]). The issue in the New York County action is whether Fidelity properly disclaimed coverage; this will turn on the wording of the policy, not whether Jaeckle committed malpractice by obtaining the wrong type of policy.
"