Blank Rome LLP v. Parrish

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blank Rome LLP v. Parrish

44 A.D.3d 573, 843 N.Y.S.2d 827

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

DecidedOctober 30, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.3d 573 (Blank Rome LLP v. Parrish) 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

Blank Rome LLP v. Parrish, 44 A.D.3d 573, 843 N.Y.S.2d 827 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered June 6, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the first affirmative defense and counterclaims for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the first affirmative defense and counterclaims reinstated.

On this record it cannot be determined as a matter of law whether the scope of plaintiffs obligations ever expanded, what those obligations might have encompassed, when those obligations might have arisen, and what type of settlement was effected in the dispute over the cooperative apartment. The record does not support a finding that any of the counterclaims was “conclusively controverted” (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]). Absent compelling and unequivocal documentary evidence delineating these issues and others, it was error to dismiss the counterclaims under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) (see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Williams, Buckley and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered June 6, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the first affirmative defense and counterclaims for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the first affirmative defense and counterclaims reinstated.

On this record it cannot be determined as a matter of law whether the scope of plaintiffs obligations ever expanded, what those obligations might have encompassed, when those obligations might have arisen, and what type of settlement was effected in the dispute over the cooperative apartment. The record does not support a finding that any of the counterclaims was “conclusively controverted” (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]). Absent compelling and unequivocal documentary evidence delineating these issues and others, it was error to dismiss the counterclaims under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) (see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Williams, Buckley and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 573, 843 N.Y.S.2d 827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blank-rome-llp-v-parrish-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack