Amaral v. Monteleone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amaral v. Monteleone

260 A.D.2d 587, 687 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4320

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

DecidedApril 26, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D.2d 587 (Amaral v. Monteleone) 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

Amaral v. Monteleone, 260 A.D.2d 587, 687 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4320 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), dated February 18, 1998, which, upon an order of the same court dated January 29, 1998, granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants’ submissions established their entitlement to [588]*588judgment as a matter of law with respect to the plaintiffs’ claims of legal malpractice (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 325; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). Since the plaintiffs did not raise any triable issues of fact in their opposition papers, the trial court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint alleging legal malpractice. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Joy, 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 plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), dated February 18, 1998, which, upon an order of the same court dated January 29, 1998, granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants’ submissions established their entitlement to [588]*588judgment as a matter of law with respect to the plaintiffs’ claims of legal malpractice (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 325; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). Since the plaintiffs did not raise any triable issues of fact in their opposition papers, the trial court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint alleging legal malpractice. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 587, 687 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amaral-v-monteleone-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack