The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York has dismissed an appeal in the case of Oberlander v. Kriss, docket number 2023-03447. The decision, made on June 3, 2026, affects the plaintiffs, Frederick M. Oberlander and others, who sought to recover damages related to unpaid legal fees and alleged violations of Judiciary Law § 487. The dismissal was based on the plaintiffs' failure to oppose a motion to dismiss their amended complaint.

This ruling is significant as it highlights the importance of procedural compliance in legal cases. The plaintiffs' inability to respond to the defendants' motion has led to the dismissal of their appeal, which may impact their ability to recover the claimed legal fees and damages.

Background

The parties involved in this case are Frederick M. Oberlander and other plaintiffs, who are attorneys, and the defendants, including Jody Kriss, Bradley Simon, and the law firm Schlam Stone & Dolan, LLP. The dispute originated in November 2021 when the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Kriss and another defendant, Michael "Chudi" Ejekam, to recover unpaid legal fees, expenses, and disbursements.

In October 2022, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include Bradley Simon and the law firm Schlam Stone & Dolan, LLP, alleging that Simon had violated Judiciary Law § 487. This law pertains to the conduct of attorneys and prohibits them from engaging in deceitful practices that harm clients or others. The case was filed in Suffolk County, and the plaintiffs aimed to hold the defendants accountable for their alleged misconduct.

The Ruling

The court ruled on February 10, 2023, granting the defendants' unopposed motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The decision was made by Justice George Nolan of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The plaintiffs did not respond to the motion, leading to the court's conclusion that no appeal could lie from an order made upon the default of the appealing party.

The court stated, "No appeal lies from an order made upon the default of the appealing party." This emphasizes the necessity for parties to actively participate in their legal proceedings.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's ruling, stating that the proper procedure for the defaulting party is to seek to vacate their default and, if necessary, appeal the denial of that request. The court cited previous cases to support its ruling, emphasizing the procedural requirements that must be met for an appeal to be considered.

Impact

The dismissal of this appeal has significant implications for the plaintiffs. By failing to oppose the motion to dismiss, they have effectively lost their chance to recover the unpaid legal fees and damages they sought. This case serves as a reminder to litigants of the importance of adhering to procedural rules and actively engaging in their cases.

This ruling may also set a precedent for similar cases where plaintiffs fail to respond to motions. It underscores the necessity for parties to remain vigilant and proactive in their legal matters, as failure to do so can result in the loss of their claims.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether the plaintiffs plan to seek to vacate their default or pursue any further legal action. It remains to be seen if they will take additional steps in this matter or if there are related cases pending.