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

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 201 A.D.2d 601 (Albach v. Manning & Mule) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 601, 609 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albach-v-manning-mule-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack