Afsharimehr v. Barer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Afsharimehr v. Barer

303 A.D.2d 432, 755 N.Y.S.2d 888

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

DecidedMarch 10, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 432 (Afsharimehr v. Barer) 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

Afsharimehr v. Barer, 303 A.D.2d 432, 755 N.Y.S.2d 888 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), entered September 19, 2001, which, upon granting the defendant’s oral motion at trial to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the legal malpractice action was barred by the defendant attorney’s successful prosecution of a prior action to recover fees for the same legal services that the plaintiff alleges were negligently performed (see Pirog v Ingber, 203 AD2d 348 [1994]; John Grace & Co. v Tunstead, Schechter & Torre, 186 AD2d 15 [1992]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. Feuerstein, J.P., Smith, Krausman and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), entered September 19, 2001, which, upon granting the defendant’s oral motion at trial to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the legal malpractice action was barred by the defendant attorney’s successful prosecution of a prior action to recover fees for the same legal services that the plaintiff alleges were negligently performed (see Pirog v Ingber, 203 AD2d 348 [1994]; John Grace & Co. v Tunstead, Schechter & Torre, 186 AD2d 15 [1992]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. Feuerstein, J.P., Smith, Krausman and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 432, 755 N.Y.S.2d 888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/afsharimehr-v-barer-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack