Li v. PengLi v. Peng
Feng Li, New York, NY, and Kenneth Ellman, Newton, New Jersey, appellants pro se (one brief filed).
Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., New York, NY (Willard C. Shih of counsel), for respondents.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, for declaratory relief, the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Cоurt, Queens County (Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, J.), entered March 11, 2015, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the seventh cause of action, (2) an order of the same сourt entered June 29, 2015, which denied their motion for leave to serve a supplemental pleading, (3) an order of the same court entered July 6, 2015, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to
ORDERED that the appeal from the order entered July 13, 2015, is dismissed, as the plaintiffs are not aggrieved thereby (see
ORDERED that the order entered July 6, 2015, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.
The defendants are former clients and the representatives of the estates of former clients (hereinafter collectively the clients) of the plaintiff Feng Li, an attorney who represented the clients in an action commenced in the Supreme Court, Queens County (hereinafter the underlying action), against Fabian A. Sy and others (hereinafter collectively the Sy defendants), inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The underlying action was commenced by other counsel in 1990, and the clients engaged Feng Li in 2005. The retainer agreement provided that Feng Li‘s feе for prosecuting the underlying action would be determined based on the “net recovery,” defined to exclude prejudgment interest. The retainer agreement listed a New Jersey address and phone number for Feng Li.
In March 2008, the Supreme Court, after a nonjury trial, entered judgment in the underlying action in favor of the clients and against thе Sy defendants in the total sum of approximately $3.4 million, consisting of principal awards to the clients totaling approximately $1.3 million, plus interest from September 1990, and costs and disbursements.
The Sy defendants appealed from the judgment, and the clients, represented by Feng Li, cross-appealed. Pending determination of the appeal and cross appeal, the Sy defendants posted an undertaking with the Commissioner of Finance. In a decision and order dated May 5, 2009, this Court affirmеd the judgment (see Huang v Sy, 62 AD3d 660), and the Commissioner of Finance thereafter released to Feng Li so much of the undertaking as would satisfy the March 2008 judgment, plus postjudgment interest.
Around the time thаt the Commissioner of Finance released the funds, a dispute arose between Feng Li and the clients as to the calculation of Feng Li‘s legal fees in connеction with the underlying action. In late August 2009, while the fee dispute was still unresolved, Feng Li disbursed approximately $1.2 million of the amount collected on behalf of the cliеnts to himself, and remitted the remaining amount, approximately $2.8 million, to the clients. Feng Li was subsequently disbarred in New Jersey and suspended from the practice of law in Nеw York for misappropriating the disputed portion of his legal fee (see Matter of Feng Li, 149 AD3d 238; In re Feng Li, 213 NJ 523).
On September 30, 2014, Feng Li, together with the plaintiff Kenneth Ellman (hereinafter together the plaintiffs), as assignee of certain accounts reсeivable previously owned by Feng Li and allegedly payable by the clients, commenced this action, seeking a judgment declaring that Feng Li was entitled to the full amоunt of the funds he had disbursed to himself in August 2009, as well as an award of damages from the clients for breach of contract and alleged tortious conduct in challenging Feng Li‘s right tо the disputed funds.
The clients moved for summary judgment on their complaint in the New Jersey action. Feng Li opposed the motion, arguing, inter alia, that the agreed-upоn contingency fee did not include his work in collecting the judgment and on appeal in the underlying action, and reiterating his earlier contention that the New Jersey court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the fee dispute. On January 30, 2015, the New Jersey court awarded summary judgment to the clients on their complaint, and on February 12, 2015, the New Jersey court entered a judgment in favor of the clients and against Feng Li and his firm in the total sum of approximately $1 million.
The clients moved in the instant action pursuant to
The doctrine of collateral estoppel, a narrowеr species of res
“The full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution (
“As a mаtter of full faith and credit, review by the courts of this State is limited to determining whether the rendering court had jurisdiction, an inquiry which includes due process considerations” (Fiore v Oakwood Plaza Shopping Ctr., 78 NY2d 572, 577). Here, however, Feng Li previously challenged the jurisdiction of the New Jersey court, and the New Jersey court found that it had jurisdiction over the fee dispute. As a result, the рlaintiffs are barred from relitigating that issue in the Supreme Court (see Baldwin v Iowa State Traveling Men‘s Assn., 283 US 522, 524-525; Vander v Casperson, 12 NY2d 56, 59-60; CIBC Mellon Trust Co. v Mora Hotel Corp., 296 AD2d 81, 91-92).
The Supreme Court properly determined that the judgment entered in the New Jersey action had conсlusively disposed of all of the plaintiffs’ claims and, therefore, the plaintiffs are collaterally estopped from maintaining the instant action (see Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d at 350).
The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions regarding the order
CHAMBERS, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, MALTESE and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court