A.H. Harris & Sons, Inc. v. Burke, Cavalier, Lindy & Engel, P. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

A.H. Harris & Sons, Inc. v. Burke, Cavalier, Lindy & Engel, P. C.

202 A.D.2d 929, 610 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3069

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 31, 1994·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Kahn, J.), entered May 4, 1993 in Albany County, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Supreme Court correctly dismissed the complaint in this legal malpractice action for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiffs sole allegation of negligence is its assertion that defendants failed to call available witnesses to the stand at trial. However, given an attorney’s freedom to choose among several strategies or courses of action, the mere allegation that defendants failed to present admissible evidence, without pleading how or why such failure fell below the ordinary and reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed in the legal profession, does not properly state a cause of action for legal malpractice.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Kahn, J.), entered May 4, 1993 in Albany County, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Supreme Court correctly dismissed the complaint in this legal malpractice action for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiffs sole allegation of negligence is its assertion that defendants failed to call available witnesses to the stand at trial. However, given an attorney’s freedom to choose among several strategies or courses of action, the mere allegation that defendants failed to present admissible evidence, without pleading how or why such failure fell below the ordinary and reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed in the legal profession, does not properly state a cause of action for legal malpractice.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A.H. Harris & Sons, Inc. v. Burke, Cavalier, Lindy & Engel, P. C., 202 A.D.2d 929, 610 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3069 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

202 A.D.2d 929 (A.H. Harris & Sons, Inc. v. Burke, Cavalier, Lindy & Engel, P. C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related