Burke v. Law Offices of Landau, Miller & Moran

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burke v. Law Offices of Landau, Miller & Moran

289 A.D.2d 16, 733 N.Y.S.2d 416, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11618

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 16 (Burke v. Law Offices of Landau, Miller & Moran) 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

Burke v. Law Offices of Landau, Miller & Moran, 289 A.D.2d 16, 733 N.Y.S.2d 416, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered April 18, 2000, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[17]*17The IAS court correctly concluded that defendant law firm was not entitled to dismissal of the legal malpractice cause of action against it as a matter of law, where it notified plaintiff merely 33 days before expiration of the statutory period that the firm was declining to represent plaintiff in her contemplated medical malpractice action, and further failed to specifically call her attention to the number of days remaining before the Statute of Limitations expired. Rather, under the circumstances, a question of fact is presented as to whether this conduct constituted a breach of a duty owed to plaintiff. Concur — Andrias, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered April 18, 2000, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[17]*17The IAS court correctly concluded that defendant law firm was not entitled to dismissal of the legal malpractice cause of action against it as a matter of law, where it notified plaintiff merely 33 days before expiration of the statutory period that the firm was declining to represent plaintiff in her contemplated medical malpractice action, and further failed to specifically call her attention to the number of days remaining before the Statute of Limitations expired. Rather, under the circumstances, a question of fact is presented as to whether this conduct constituted a breach of a duty owed to plaintiff. Concur — Andrias, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 16, 733 N.Y.S.2d 416, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burke-v-law-offices-of-landau-miller-moran-nyappdiv-2001.