Simoni v. Napoli ( 2012 )

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendants’ request for a stay of the legal malpractice action pending resolution of plaintiff’s personal injury action (see CPLR 2201). The proceedings do not share complete identity of parties, claims and relief sought (see 952 Assoc., LLC v Palmer, 52 AD3d 236 [1st Dept 2008]; Esposit v Anderson Kill Olick & Oshinsky, 237 AD2d 246 [2d Dept 1997]).

The motion court also properly permitted plaintiff to amend the complaint (see CPLR 3025 [b]). The amended complaint and the documents submitted in support of the cross motion allege facts from which it could reasonably be inferred that defendants’ negligence caused plaintiffs loss (see Garnett v Fox, Horan & Camerini, LLP, 82 AD3d 435 [1st Dept 2011]). At this stage of the proceedings, plaintiff does not have to show that he actually sustained damages as a result of defendants’ alleged malpractice (id. at 436). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Acosta and Román, JJ.