Albach v. Manning & Mule

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Albach v. Manning & Mule

201 A.D.2d 601, 609 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1439

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 22, 1994·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), entered January 31, 1992, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought this action to recover damages for legal malpractice based on the allegation that the defendants failed to commence a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 within the applicable Statute of Limitations period. Since the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that, but for the defendants’ negligence, they would have prevailed in the proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, summary judgment is awarded to the defendants (see, Gonzales v O’Hagen & Reilly, 189 AD2d 801; Flinn v Aab, 167 AD2d 507; Mahoney v Manfredi, 166 AD2d 557). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), entered January 31, 1992, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought this action to recover damages for legal malpractice based on the allegation that the defendants failed to commence a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 within the applicable Statute of Limitations period. Since the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that, but for the defendants’ negligence, they would have prevailed in the proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, summary judgment is awarded to the defendants (see, Gonzales v O’Hagen & Reilly, 189 AD2d 801; Flinn v Aab, 167 AD2d 507; Mahoney v Manfredi, 166 AD2d 557). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

Albach v. Manning & Mule, 201 A.D.2d 601, 609 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1439 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

201 A.D.2d 601 (Albach v. Manning & Mule) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related