Andrews Beverage Distributor, Inc. v. Stern

215 A.D.2d 706, 627 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5740
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 30, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 215 A.D.2d 706 (Andrews Beverage Distributor, Inc. v. Stern) 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
Andrews Beverage Distributor, Inc. v. Stern, 215 A.D.2d 706, 627 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5740 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kohn, J.), dated December 13, 1993, as, upon renewal, denied their motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In order to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must not only prove that the attorney failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence commonly possessed and exercised by a member of the legal community (see, Logalbo v Plishkin, Rubano & Baum, 163 AD2d 511), but the plaintiff must also establish that the attorney’s negligence was a proximate cause of the loss sustained, that the plaintiff incurred damages as a direct result of the attorney’s actions, and that the plaintiff would have been successful in the underlying action if the attorney had exercised due care (see, Luniewski v Zeitlin, 188 AD2d 642; Parksville Mobil Modular v Fabricant, 73 AD2d 595, 599, citing Kerson Co. v Shayne, Dachs, Weiss, Kolbrenner, Levy & Levine, 45 NY2d 730). In the case herein, the appellant failed to raise triable issues as to whether the attorney’s actions were a proximate cause of the loss.

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Pizzuto, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Simmons v. Edelstein
32 A.D.3d 464 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Zelenaya v. Rosengarten
301 A.D.2d 519 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Frank v. Pepe
186 Misc. 2d 377 (New York Supreme Court, 2000)
Turner v. Robins
267 A.D.2d 376 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Ashton v. Scotman
260 A.D.2d 332 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Svigals v. Hopgood, Calimafde, Kalil & Judlowe
256 A.D.2d 460 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Lefkowitz v. Lurie
253 A.D.2d 855 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Rubinberg v. Walker
252 A.D.2d 466 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Saferstein v. Klein
250 A.D.2d 831 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Purificati v. Meyer & Diesenhouse
243 A.D.2d 697 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Kozmol v. Law Firm of Rothenberg
241 A.D.2d 484 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
U.S. Ice Cream Corp. v. Bizar
240 A.D.2d 654 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Volpe v. Canfield
237 A.D.2d 282 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Schleikorn v. Trachtenberg
228 A.D.2d 489 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Zasso v. Maher
226 A.D.2d 366 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
215 A.D.2d 706, 627 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrews-beverage-distributor-inc-v-stern-nyappdiv-1995.