IN RE: JONES LAW FIRM (2024)

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered August 2, 2023, which, to the extent appealed from, declined to consider the counterclaims of respondents J. Synergy Green, Inc. Avrohom Y. Sorotzkin, and Yaakov Milstein (respondents) related to alleged violations of Judiciary Law § 487, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The Judiciary Act § 487 counterclaims interposed in this action involve an inquiry into disputed facts as to whether petitioner Jones Law Firm, P.C. intentionally deceived respondents (see Matter of David H. Berg & Assoc. v. Weksler, 193 A.D.3d 612, 613, 142 N.Y.S.3d 817 [1st Dept. 2021]).  Petitioner did not seek dismissal of these claims.  Consequently, Supreme Court improperly dismissed these counterclaims sua sponte.  “Vacating the dismissal order is consistent with the public policy of this State to dispose of cases on their merits (Harwood v. Chaliha, 291 A.D.2d 234, 234, 737 N.Y.S.2d 359 [1st Dept. 2002]), and upholds the principle that a trial court's power to dismiss an action sua sponte should be used ‘sparingly and only in extraordinary circumstances’ ” (Cooper v. Broems, 214 A.D.3d 497, 497, 186 N.Y.S.3d 159 [1st Dept. 2023] [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Ray v. Chen, 148 A.D.3d 568, 569, 50 N.Y.S.3d 62 [1st Dept. 2017];  Grant v. Rattoballi, 57 A.D.3d 272, 273, 869 N.Y.S.2d 53 [1st Dept. 2008];  see also Myung Chun v. North Am. Mtge. Co., 285 A.D.2d 42, 45, 729 N.Y.S.2d 716 [1st Dept. 2001];  Mateo v. City of New York, 274 A.D.2d 337, 337, 711 N.Y.S.2d 396 [1st Dept. 2000]).  However there is no right of appeal from an ex parte order, including an order entered sua sponte (Sholes v. Meagher, 100 N.Y.2d 333, 335, 763 N.Y.S.2d 522, 794 N.E.2d 664 [2003]).  Under these circumstances, the appropriate remedy is for us to dismiss the appeal.