Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
FARID POPAL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. HARVEY J. SLOVIS, ESQ., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. FARID POPAL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is granted.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking monetary damages, allegedly resulting from the failure of defendant, his former attorney, to return unearned legal fees and unused funds for litigation expenses advanced to defendant prior to his representation of plaintiff in a criminal matter. Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for permission to proceed as a poor person pursuant to CPLR 1101, and plaintiff moved for leave to renew the motion. The court granted leave to renew and, upon renewal, adhered to its original determination. In denying the motion, the court determined that, although plaintiff had submitted a letter from an attorney attesting to the merits of his case, he had not sufficiently demonstrated that his underlying causes of action were meritorious. We agree with plaintiff that his action “is not frivolous or, stated another way, that the [action] has arguable merit” (Nicholas v. Reason, 79 A.D.2d 1113; see Matter of Young v. Monroe County Clerk's Off., 46 AD3d 1379). “Although the determination whether to grant permission to proceed as a poor person lies within the sound discretion of the ․ court ․, we conclude under the circumstances presented herein that the court abused its discretion in denying the motion” (Young, 46 AD3d at 1380).
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CA 10-00731
Decided: March 25, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)