Fighting in the trenches during WW1 was said to be dirty and without any rules.  It often seems that the same situation obtains for third-party litigation between law firms, one of which was responsible for failing to file a mortgage.  Fighting over money is the domain of attorneys, it can be dirty, and seemingly without rules and has been for centuries.

in U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR ASSET BACKED PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-HE1, Plaintiffs, -against- ALAN C. STEIN, ESQ., GASTWIRTH, MIRSKY & STEIN, L.L.P., LAW OFFICE OF ALAN C. STEIN, P.C., ROBERT M. STEINERT and CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. ALAN C. STEIN, ESQ., GASTWIRTH, MIRSKY & STEIN, L.L.P. and LAW OFFICE OF ALAN C. STEIN, P.C., Third-Party Plaintiffs, -against- STEVEN J. BAUM, P.C., and STEVEN J. BAUM, ESQ., Third-Party Defendants. Index No.: 016919/08 we see one law firm pitted against aother.  In this particular round of engagements, one law firm now seeks re-argument after an appeal.
 

"On or about September 11, 2008, the Plaintiff, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR ASSET BACKED PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-HE1 ("US Bank"), commenced this action against the Stein Defendants for legal malpractice alleging that the Defendants were negligent in failing to properly record a mortgage executed in favor of the Plaintiff on a certain parcel of land located at 112 Irving Avenue, Deer Park, New York (hereinafter "Premises"). The Stein [*3] Defendants subsequently commenced a third-party action against the Baum Firm for contribution alleging that the Baum Firm failed to timely intervene in the action which could have secured the Plaintiff an equitable lien on its incorrectly recorded mortgage. The basis of the Stein Defendants’ claim for contribution is that the Baum Firm was negligent/guilty of malpractice in that it knew or should have known of another mortgage on the same Premises in favor of T&V Construction Corp. (hereinafter the "T&V Mortgage"), and the Baum Firm’s failure to timely intervene in the T&V Mortgage foreclosure proceeding proximately caused damages to the Plaintiff, US Bank."

"The Baum Firm moved to dismiss the third-party complaint, pursuant to CPLR § 3211 (a) (7), claiming that there was no basis for a malpractice action since it was retained in a different matter and for a different purpose than were the Stein Defendants. Justice William R. LaMarca, prior to his retirement from the bench, denied the motion to dismiss, relying on Schauer v. Joyce, 54 N.Y.2d 1, 429 N.E.2d 83, 444 N.Y.S.2d 564 (1981) and Dole v. Dow Chemical Co., 30 N.Y.2d 143, 282 N.E.2d 288, 331 N.Y.S.2d 382 (1972), finding that the third-party complaint validly stated a claim for contribution.2 [*4] (See Short Form Order, LaMarca, J., 12/04/09). In affirming Justice LaMarca’s Order, the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that, "[t]he Supreme Court properly determined that the Stein defendants stated [**4] a cause of action against the third-party defendant Steven J. Baum, P.C., by asserting, among other things, that Steven J. Baum, P.C., failed to timely correct the legal errors allegedly committed by the Stein defendants in their representation of the plaintiffs predecessor in interest, despite having sufficient time and an opportunity to do. The third-party complaint alleged sufficient facts which, if true, would establish that Steven J. Baum, P.C., may be liable to the Stein defendants for causing or contributing to the plaintiffs alleged damages"."

"A motion for reargument is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and may be granted upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or misapplied any controlling principles of law. Ito v. 324 East 9th Street Corp., 49 A.D.3d 816, 817, 857 N.Y.S.2d 578 (2d Dept. 2008). It is not designed, however, as a vehicle to provide an unsuccessful party with successive opportunities to rehash issues previously decided (Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 567, 418 N.Y.S.2d 588 (1st Dept. 1979)), or to present arguments different from those originally presented. Giovanniello v. Carolina Wholesale Office Mach. Co., 29 A.D.3d 737, 738, 815 N.Y.S.2d 248 (2d Dept. 2006).

The Court finds that, in rendering its previous decision, all of the arguments raised by the Stein Defendants herein were considered. Stein failed to show that the Court [*9] overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or misapplied any controlling principles of law. As such, the Court adheres to its original decision and Stein’s motion to reargue is DENIED.
 

"