Brown v. Samalin & Bock, P. C.

168 A.D.2d 531, 563 N.Y.S.2d 426, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15630
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 17, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 531 (Brown v. Samalin & Bock, 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.

Bluebook
Brown v. Samalin & Bock, P. C., 168 A.D.2d 531, 563 N.Y.S.2d 426, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15630 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered May 18, 1989, which granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing his cause of action for lost profits.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this legal malpractice action, the plaintiff claims that the negligence of the defendants in representing him concerning a real estate contract caused him to lose anticipated profits. He claims that because of the defendants’ negligence he was not able to enforce his contract for the purchase of certain property which he planned to subdivide in order to realize a profit. [532]*532However, we agree with the defendants’ argument that this claim is too speculative and incapable of being proven with any reasonable certainty (see, Kenford, Co. v County of Erie, 67 NY2d 257). The plaintiff had no experience in real estate development, and his financing was questionable. Furthermore, there is no evidence that he would have been able to obtain permission to subdivide the property into a sufficient number of building lots to make subdivision profitable. Thus, the court properly granted partial summary judgment on the lost profits cause of action, since, as a matter of law, it was too speculative to support a recovery (see, Grow Tunneling Corp. v Consolidated Edison Co., 157 AD2d 452; Hirsch Elec. Co. v Community Servs., 145 AD2d 603).

Further, the granting of partial summary judgment was proper, since the plaintiff did not adequately oppose the motion with the expert evidence which the issues warranted (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Capelin Assocs. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338; Kratter v Weintraub, 97 AD2d 491). Kooper, J. P., Fiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Sebco Dev., Inc. v. Siegel & Reiner, LLP
2024 NY Slip Op 50292(U) (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, 2024)
LINCOLN TRUST v. SPAZIANO, ALFRED D.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Lincoln Trust v. Spaziano
118 A.D.3d 1399 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Antenucci v. Reliable Electric, Inc.
39 Misc. 3d 368 (New York Supreme Court, 2013)
1309 Avenue P v. Garfinkel
84 A.D.3d 1332 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Natale v. Jeffrey Samel & Associates
308 A.D.2d 568 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Zeller v. Copps
294 A.D.2d 683 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Oot v. Arno
275 A.D.2d 1023 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Schweizer v. Mulvehill
93 F. Supp. 2d 376 (S.D. New York, 2000)
Estate of Nevelson v. Carro, Spanbock, Kaster & Cuiffo
259 A.D.2d 282 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Zasso v. Maher
226 A.D.2d 366 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Herbert H. Post & Co. v. Sidney Bitterman, Inc.
219 A.D.2d 214 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Charos v. Esseks, Hefter & Angel
216 A.D.2d 511 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Khadem v. Fischer & Kagan
215 A.D.2d 441 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Bailey v. Jamaica Buses Co.
210 A.D.2d 192 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Hudson Engineering Associates v. Kramer
204 A.D.2d 277 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Lombardi v. Giannattasio
192 A.D.2d 512 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Zarin v. Reid & Priest
184 A.D.2d 385 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 A.D.2d 531, 563 N.Y.S.2d 426, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-samalin-bock-p-c-nyappdiv-1990.