Abreu v. Quesada

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abreu v. Quesada

56 A.D.2d 271, 866 N.Y.S.2d 571

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 6, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 271 (Abreu v. Quesada) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abreu v. Quesada, 56 A.D.2d 271, 866 N.Y.S.2d 571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered May 10, 2007, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability for legal malpractice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record contains no dispute that defendant failed to file a proper request for a hearing pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a (2) (c) and that this failure resulted in the loss to plaintiff of pay and benefits to which she otherwise would have been entitled, pending a hearing, before termination (see Bishop v Maurer, 33 AD3d 497, 498 [2006], affd 9 NY3d 910 [2007]; Education Law § 3020-a [2] [b]). Further, defendant’s negligence resulted in plaintiff being obliged to retain other counsel and commence a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see Rosenkrantz v Erdheim, 177 AD2d 389 [1991]).

The partial grant of plaintiffs article 78 petition against the Board of Education does not collaterally estop plaintiff from asserting defendant’s legal malpractice (see Weiss v Manfredi, 83 NY2d 974, 976-977 [1994]; Savattere v Subin Assoc., 261 AD2d 236, 236 [1999]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Gonzalez, Catterson and Acosta, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered May 10, 2007, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability for legal malpractice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record contains no dispute that defendant failed to file a proper request for a hearing pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a (2) (c) and that this failure resulted in the loss to plaintiff of pay and benefits to which she otherwise would have been entitled, pending a hearing, before termination (see Bishop v Maurer, 33 AD3d 497, 498 [2006], affd 9 NY3d 910 [2007]; Education Law § 3020-a [2] [b]). Further, defendant’s negligence resulted in plaintiff being obliged to retain other counsel and commence a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see Rosenkrantz v Erdheim, 177 AD2d 389 [1991]).

The partial grant of plaintiffs article 78 petition against the Board of Education does not collaterally estop plaintiff from asserting defendant’s legal malpractice (see Weiss v Manfredi, 83 NY2d 974, 976-977 [1994]; Savattere v Subin Assoc., 261 AD2d 236, 236 [1999]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Gonzalez, Catterson and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 271, 866 N.Y.S.2d 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abreu-v-quesada-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack