Bei Yang v. Pagan Law Firm, P.C.
This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 03394 (Bei Yang v. Pagan Law Firm, P.C.) 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.
Opinion
| Bei Yang v Pagan Law Firm, P.C. |
| 2024 NY Slip Op 03394 |
| Decided on June 20, 2024 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided and Entered: June 20, 2024
Before: Oing, J.P., Friedman, González, Rodriguez, O'Neill Levy, JJ.
Index No. 158570/18 Appeal No. 2538 Case No. 2022-01936
v
The Pagan Law Firm, P.C., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Law Offices of Sanford F. Young, New York (Sanford F. Young of counsel), for appellant.
Furman Kornfeld & Brennan LLP, New York (Aaron M. Barham of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sabrina Kraus, J.), entered April 29, 2022, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this legal malpractice action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendants met their prima facie burden on a motion for summary judgment by submitting the affidavit of their legal expert, who averred that defendants did not depart from the applicable standard of care in prosecuting plaintiff's medical malpractice action (see Orchard Motorcycle Distribs., Inc. v Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein, LLP, 49 AD3d 292 [1st Dept 2008]; see e.g. Merlin Biomed Asset Mgt., LLC v Wolf Block Schorr & Solis-Cohen LLP, 23 AD3d 243 [1st Dept 2005]). Defendants established that the decisions they made in that case were reasonable and strategic courses of action (see Orchard Motorcycle, 49 AD3d 292).
Plaintiff cannot show that, but for defendants' negligence, she would have obtained a verdict after trial that exceeded the $1.3 million settlement amount defendants negotiated (see Gallet, Dreyer & Berkey, LLP v Basile, 141 AD3d 405 [1st Dept 2016]; see also Schloss v Steinberg, 100 AD3d 476 [1st Dept 2012]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: June 20, 2024
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2024 NY Slip Op 03394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bei-yang-v-pagan-law-firm-pc-nyappdiv-2024.