Anselmo v. Esernio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anselmo v. Esernio

280 A.D.2d 627, 721 N.Y.S.2d 539, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1827

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 627 (Anselmo v. Esernio) 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

Anselmo v. Esernio, 280 A.D.2d 627, 721 N.Y.S.2d 539, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1827 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cozzens, J.), dated January 7, 2000, as, upon renewal, adhered to a prior determination in an order of the same court dated March 30, 1999, granting the motion of the defendant Donnalynn Darling for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order dated January 7, 2000, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Upon granting renewal, the Supreme Court properly adhered to the prior determination in the order dated March 30, 1999, granting the motion of the defendant Donnalynn Darling for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her (see, Anselmo v Esernio, 280 AD2d 627 [decided herewith]). S. Miller, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Luciano, 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 plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cozzens, J.), dated January 7, 2000, as, upon renewal, adhered to a prior determination in an order of the same court dated March 30, 1999, granting the motion of the defendant Donnalynn Darling for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order dated January 7, 2000, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Upon granting renewal, the Supreme Court properly adhered to the prior determination in the order dated March 30, 1999, granting the motion of the defendant Donnalynn Darling for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her (see, Anselmo v Esernio, 280 AD2d 627 [decided herewith]). S. Miller, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 627, 721 N.Y.S.2d 539, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anselmo-v-esernio-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack