Barghout v. Dweck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barghout v. Dweck

244 A.D.2d 190, 664 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11360

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 190 (Barghout v. Dweck) 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

Barghout v. Dweck, 244 A.D.2d 190, 664 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11360 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered on or about July 25, 1996, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) and/or for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered October 24, 1996, unanimously dismissed, as abandoned, without costs.

The amended verified complaint adequately alleges the elements of a legal malpractice action, as summarized in Logalbo v Plishkin, Rubano & Baum (163 AD2d 511, 513, lv dismissed 77 NY2d 940). The court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment as premature since it was made before issue was joined (City of Rochester v Chiarella, 65 NY2d 92, 101). Defendants’ submission of various letters, memorandums and draft agreements do not establish a defense founded upon [191]*191documentary evidence (CPLR 3211 [a] [1]), because they do not resolve all of the factual issues (see, Lake Placid Vil. v Lake Placid Main St. Corp., 90 AD2d 873, 874). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered on or about July 25, 1996, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) and/or for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered October 24, 1996, unanimously dismissed, as abandoned, without costs.

The amended verified complaint adequately alleges the elements of a legal malpractice action, as summarized in Logalbo v Plishkin, Rubano & Baum (163 AD2d 511, 513, lv dismissed 77 NY2d 940). The court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment as premature since it was made before issue was joined (City of Rochester v Chiarella, 65 NY2d 92, 101). Defendants’ submission of various letters, memorandums and draft agreements do not establish a defense founded upon [191]*191documentary evidence (CPLR 3211 [a] [1]), because they do not resolve all of the factual issues (see, Lake Placid Vil. v Lake Placid Main St. Corp., 90 AD2d 873, 874). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 190, 664 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barghout-v-dweck-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack