Brion v. Moreira

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brion v. Moreira

138 A.D.3d 580, 28 N.Y.S.3d 608

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

DecidedApril 21, 2016

Docket900 155815/14

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.3d 580 (Brion v. Moreira) 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

Brion v. Moreira, 138 A.D.3d 580, 28 N.Y.S.3d 608 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered February 4, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint alleging legal malpractice, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion to dismiss the claims of plaintiff Basonas Construction Corp., and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The individual plaintiff (Michael) has adequately alleged a privity relationship between him and defendants, an attorney and his law firm, and the documentary evidence does not conclusively refute those allegations (see generally AG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. v State St. Bank & Trust Co., 5 NY3d 582, 595 [2005]). In particular, the complaint adequately alleges that defendants, who handled estate matters for Michael’s father, now deceased, also agreed to represent both Michael and his father in formalizing an alleged oral agreement between them, which was largely to Michael’s benefit, and which involved transfer of the father’s ownership interests in corporations owned by both of them to Michael (see Nuzum v Field, 106 AD3d 541, 541 [1st Dept 2013]; Estate of Nevelson v Carro, Spanbock, Kaster & Cuiffo, 259 AD2d 282 [1st Dept 1999]). Although Basonas also adequately alleged a privity relationship that was not conclusively refuted by the documentary evidence, the vague allegation that it suffered unspecified *581 lost profits as a result of defendants’ malpractice was insufficient to support a malpractice claim. Basonas failed to set forth factual allegations from which one could reasonably infer that lost profits were attributable to defendants’ alleged negligent conduct (see Leggiadro, Ltd. v Winston & Strawn, LLP, 119 AD3d 442, 442 [1st Dept 2014]).

The documentary evidence does not conclusively refute Michael’s allegation that the “Acknowledgment of Debt” drafted by defendants failed to memorialize the terms of the oral agreement between him and his father.

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered February 4, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint alleging legal malpractice, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion to dismiss the claims of plaintiff Basonas Construction Corp., and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The individual plaintiff (Michael) has adequately alleged a privity relationship between him and defendants, an attorney and his law firm, and the documentary evidence does not conclusively refute those allegations (see generally AG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. v State St. Bank & Trust Co., 5 NY3d 582, 595 [2005]). In particular, the complaint adequately alleges that defendants, who handled estate matters for Michael’s father, now deceased, also agreed to represent both Michael and his father in formalizing an alleged oral agreement between them, which was largely to Michael’s benefit, and which involved transfer of the father’s ownership interests in corporations owned by both of them to Michael (see Nuzum v Field, 106 AD3d 541, 541 [1st Dept 2013]; Estate of Nevelson v Carro, Spanbock, Kaster & Cuiffo, 259 AD2d 282 [1st Dept 1999]). Although Basonas also adequately alleged a privity relationship that was not conclusively refuted by the documentary evidence, the vague allegation that it suffered unspecified *581 lost profits as a result of defendants’ malpractice was insufficient to support a malpractice claim. Basonas failed to set forth factual allegations from which one could reasonably infer that lost profits were attributable to defendants’ alleged negligent conduct (see Leggiadro, Ltd. v Winston & Strawn, LLP, 119 AD3d 442, 442 [1st Dept 2014]).

The documentary evidence does not conclusively refute Michael’s allegation that the “Acknowledgment of Debt” drafted by defendants failed to memorialize the terms of the oral agreement between him and his father.

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 580, 28 N.Y.S.3d 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brion-v-moreira-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack