DAVID KAMINSKY ASSOCIATES PC v. David A. Kaminsky, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. (2019)

Order (Anthony Cannataro, J.), entered May 9, 2018, and order (Debra Rose Samuels, J.), entered June 12, 2018, affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs.

We sustain the grant of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in this action for unpaid legal fees. Plaintiff submitted evidence establishing the reasonable value of its services (see Kwangjin Song v Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP, 55 AD3d 1278 [2008]) and defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to plaintiff's entitlement to the fees sought (see DiPlacidi v Walsh, 243 AD2d 335 [1997]; Pirro & Monsell v Freddolino, 204 AD2d 613 [1994], lv dismissed 85 NY2d 903 [1995]). Nor is summary judgment precluded by defendant's legal malpractice counterclaim, since the record shows that plaintiff performed a great deal of work that was unrelated to the isolated malpractice claim found viable by the court (see Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP v Rose, 111 AD3d 453 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 904 [2014]; Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein v Ackerman, 280 AD2d 355, 356 [2001]).

We also agree with the motion court, upon reargument, that third-party plaintiff's summons did not comply with the requirements of CCA 401(b) and Civil Court rule (22 NYCRR) § 208.6(a),(b) and was jurisdictionally defective, and could not be amended (see generally Roth v State Univ. of NY, 61 AD3d 476 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 711 [2009]; Wells v Mount Sinai Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 196 AD2d 749 [1993]). In the absence of jurisdiction, it is unnecessary to reach any other issue with respect to the third-party claim.

Defendant/third-party plaintiff's remaining arguments, to the extent preserved for appellate review, are unavailing.

Per Curiam.