Bistricer v. Singer, Bienenstock, Zamansky, Ogele & Selengut, LLP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bistricer v. Singer, Bienenstock, Zamansky, Ogele & Selengut, LLP

14 A.D.3d 468, 787 N.Y.S.2d 881, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 578

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 14 A.D.3d 468 (Bistricer v. Singer, Bienenstock, Zamansky, Ogele & Selengut, LLP) 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

Bistricer v. Singer, Bienenstock, Zamansky, Ogele & Selengut, LLP, 14 A.D.3d 468, 787 N.Y.S.2d 881, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 578 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[469]*469Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered July 13, 2004, which, in an action arising out of defendant attorneys’ erroneous advice that a contemplated securities transaction was legal, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ cause of action for legal malpractice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The legality of the transaction for which plaintiffs sought defendants’ advice was uncertain and debatable, as demonstrated by the very litigation brought against plaintiffs challenging the transaction after it had been completed (Editek, Inc. v Morgan Capital, L.L.C., 974 F Supp 1229 [D Minn 1997], revd 150 F3d 830 [8th Cir 1998], on remand sub nom. Medtox Scientific, Inc. v Morgan Capital L.L.C., 50 F Supp 2d 896, 899 [1999], affd 258 F3d 763 [2001], cert denied 534 US 1128 [2002]). Accordingly, defendants cannot be held liable for what turned out to be erroneous advice that the transaction was legal (see Darby & Darby v VSI Intl., 95 NY2d 308, 314-315 [2000], citing, inter alia, MCEG Sterling v Phillips Nizer Benjamin Krim & Ballon, 169 Misc 2d 625, 629 [1996]). However, defendants can be held liable for negligently failing to advise that the legality of the transaction was uncertain (see National Enters. Corp. v Dechert Price & Rhoads, 246 AD2d 481 [1998]; Estate of Nevelson v Carro, Spanbock, Raster & Cuiffo, 259 AD2d 282, 284-285 [1999]). In that regard, issues of fact exist as to whether defendants’ opinion was unqualified; if so, whether the state of the law was such as to make legality uncertain (see National Enters. at 482); and, if so, whether defendants were negligent in failing to realize as much and to so advise the clients (cf. Darby, 95 NY2d at 314). We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

[469]*469Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered July 13, 2004, which, in an action arising out of defendant attorneys’ erroneous advice that a contemplated securities transaction was legal, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ cause of action for legal malpractice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The legality of the transaction for which plaintiffs sought defendants’ advice was uncertain and debatable, as demonstrated by the very litigation brought against plaintiffs challenging the transaction after it had been completed (Editek, Inc. v Morgan Capital, L.L.C., 974 F Supp 1229 [D Minn 1997], revd 150 F3d 830 [8th Cir 1998], on remand sub nom. Medtox Scientific, Inc. v Morgan Capital L.L.C., 50 F Supp 2d 896, 899 [1999], affd 258 F3d 763 [2001], cert denied 534 US 1128 [2002]). Accordingly, defendants cannot be held liable for what turned out to be erroneous advice that the transaction was legal (see Darby & Darby v VSI Intl., 95 NY2d 308, 314-315 [2000], citing, inter alia, MCEG Sterling v Phillips Nizer Benjamin Krim & Ballon, 169 Misc 2d 625, 629 [1996]). However, defendants can be held liable for negligently failing to advise that the legality of the transaction was uncertain (see National Enters. Corp. v Dechert Price & Rhoads, 246 AD2d 481 [1998]; Estate of Nevelson v Carro, Spanbock, Raster & Cuiffo, 259 AD2d 282, 284-285 [1999]). In that regard, issues of fact exist as to whether defendants’ opinion was unqualified; if so, whether the state of the law was such as to make legality uncertain (see National Enters. at 482); and, if so, whether defendants were negligent in failing to realize as much and to so advise the clients (cf. Darby, 95 NY2d at 314). We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.3d 468, 787 N.Y.S.2d 881, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bistricer-v-singer-bienenstock-zamansky-ogele-selengut-llp-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack